OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of fluorescence spectroscopy in screening for squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) and to compare its performance with that of Papanicolaou smear screening, colposcopy, cervicoscopy, cervicography, and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. DATA SOURCES: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to analyze performance by fluorescence spectroscopy (primary data) and other methods (secondary data). METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: In our search, 275 articles were identified in MEDLINE (1966-1996). Articles were included if the investigators had studied a population in whom low disease prevalence was expected; used either Papanicolaou smear screening and colposcopy or colposcopically directed biopsy as a standard against which the screening technique was measured, and included enough data for recalculation of reported sensitivities and specificities. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic curves for fluorescence spectroscopy were calculated using a Bayesian algorithm, and ROC curves for the other screening methods were constructed using metaanalytic techniques. Areas under the ROC curves and Q points were calculated. Screening colposcopy had the highest area under the curve (0.95), followed by screening cervicography (0.90), HPV testing (0.88), cervicoscopy (0.85), fluorescence spectroscopy (0.76), and Papanicolaou smear screening (0.70). CONCLUSION: In terms of screening for SILs, fluorescence spectroscopy performed better than the standard technique, Papanicolaou smear screening, and less well than screening colposcopy, cervicography, HPV testing, and cervicoscopy. The promise of this research technique warrants further investigation.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of fluorescence spectroscopy in screening for squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) and to compare its performance with that of Papanicolaou smear screening, colposcopy, cervicoscopy, cervicography, and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. DATA SOURCES: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to analyze performance by fluorescence spectroscopy (primary data) and other methods (secondary data). METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: In our search, 275 articles were identified in MEDLINE (1966-1996). Articles were included if the investigators had studied a population in whom low disease prevalence was expected; used either Papanicolaou smear screening and colposcopy or colposcopically directed biopsy as a standard against which the screening technique was measured, and included enough data for recalculation of reported sensitivities and specificities. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic curves for fluorescence spectroscopy were calculated using a Bayesian algorithm, and ROC curves for the other screening methods were constructed using metaanalytic techniques. Areas under the ROC curves and Q points were calculated. Screening colposcopy had the highest area under the curve (0.95), followed by screening cervicography (0.90), HPV testing (0.88), cervicoscopy (0.85), fluorescence spectroscopy (0.76), and Papanicolaou smear screening (0.70). CONCLUSION: In terms of screening for SILs, fluorescence spectroscopy performed better than the standard technique, Papanicolaou smear screening, and less well than screening colposcopy, cervicography, HPV testing, and cervicoscopy. The promise of this research technique warrants further investigation.
Authors: J Luna-Herrera; G Martínez-Cabrera; R Parra-Maldonado; J A Enciso-Moreno; J Torres-López; F Quesada-Pascual; R Delgadillo-Polanco; S G Franzblau Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2003-01-25 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Mariska M G Leeflang; Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Lotty Hooft; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: CMAJ Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Timon P H Buys; Scott B Cantor; Martial Guillaud; Karen Adler-Storthz; Dennis D Cox; Clement Okolo; Oyedunni Arulogon; Oladimeji Oladepo; Karen Basen-Engquist; Eileen Shinn; José-Miguel Yamal; J Robert Beck; Michael E Scheurer; Dirk van Niekerk; Anais Malpica; Jasenka Matisic; Gregg Staerkel; Edward Neely Atkinson; Luc Bidaut; Pierre Lane; J Lou Benedet; Dianne Miller; Tom Ehlen; Roderick Price; Isaac F Adewole; Calum MacAulay; Michele Follen Journal: Gend Med Date: 2011-09-22
Authors: Scott B Cantor; Jose-Miguel Yamal; Martial Guillaud; Dennis D Cox; E Neely Atkinson; John L Benedet; Dianne Miller; Thomas Ehlen; Jasenka Matisic; Dirk van Niekerk; Monique Bertrand; Andrea Milbourne; Helen Rhodes; Anais Malpica; Gregg Staerkel; Shahla Nader-Eftekhari; Karen Adler-Storthz; Michael E Scheurer; Karen Basen-Engquist; Eileen Shinn; Loyd A West; Anne-Therese Vlastos; Xia Tao; J Robert Beck; Calum Macaulay; Michele Follen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Aladdin Mustafa; Sapna Gupta; Gary R Hudes; Brian L Egleston; Robert G Uzzo; Warren D Kruger Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Marcello Di Nisio; Nynke Smidt; Jeroen C van Rijn; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: CMAJ Date: 2006-02-14 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Sanaz Hariri Tabrizi; S Mahmoud Reza Aghamiri; Farah Farzaneh; Henricus J C M Sterenborg Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 3.161