Literature DB >> 12039126

Assessment of the cervix after acetic acid wash: inter-rater agreement using photographs.

J W Sellors1, J Jeronimo, R Sankaranarayanan, T C Wright, M Howard, P D Blumenthal.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the inter-rater agreement on the assessment of cervical photographs after acetic acid wash, using visual inspection with acetic acid categories.
METHODS: Three raters individually assessed 144 photographs as negative, positive, or suspicious for cancer. The inter-rater agreement was analyzed using the unweighted and weighted kappa coefficient. To explore the reasons for concordancy and discordancy, photographs were compared on histologic evidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and on testing for oncogenic types of human papillomavirus.
RESULTS: Overall raw agreement among the three raters was 66.7% (96 of 144) with a kappa of 0.57 (95% confidence interval 0.48, 0.66). Pair-wise agreement using unweighted and weighted kappa was moderate to substantial: 0.54-0.60 and 0.56-0.63, respectively. There was concordance on negative in 25.7% (37 of 144) and on positive or suspicious for cancer in 41.0% (59 of 144). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II or III was not present on biopsy if photographs were concordant-negative, and the human papillomavirus test was less likely to be positive (relative risk 0.3; 95% confidence interval 0.2, 0.6) in concordant-negatives compared with concordant-positives, including suspicious for cancer. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II or III was more common in photographs that were concordant-positive, including suspicious for cancer, compared with discordants (relative risk 3.4, 95% confidence interval 1.5, 7.6).
CONCLUSION: Based on photographs of the cervix taken after acetic acid wash, the level of agreement among raters using visual inspection with acetic acid categories was moderate to substantial, consistent with other commonly used tests.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12039126     DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01767-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  6 in total

Review 1.  False Negative Results in Cervical Cancer Screening-Risks, Reasons and Implications for Clinical Practice and Public Health.

Authors:  Anna Macios; Andrzej Nowakowski
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-20

2.  Rationale and development of an on-line quality assurance programme for colposcopy in a population-based cervical screening setting in Italy.

Authors:  Lauro Bucchi; Paolo Cristiani; Silvano Costa; Patrizia Schincaglia; Paola Garutti; Priscilla Sassoli de Bianchi; Carlo Naldoni; Oswaldo Olea; Mario Sideri
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 2.655

3.  Determinants of Cervical Cancer Screening Accuracy for Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (VIA) and Lugol's Iodine (VILI) Performed by Nurse and Physician.

Authors:  Amidu O Raifu; Mariam El-Zein; Ghislain Sangwa-Lugoma; Agnihotram Ramanakumar; Stephen D Walter; Eduardo L Franco
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-20       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Evaluation of a cervicography-based program to ensure quality of visual inspection of the cervix in HIV-infected women in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Authors:  Cynthia Firnhaber; Lu Mao; Simon Levin; Mark Faesen; David A Lewis; Bridgette J Goeieman; Avril J Swarts; Ntombiyenkosi Rakhombe; Pam M Michelow; Sophie Williams; Jennifer S Smith
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 1.925

5.  Development and validation of novel digitalized cervicography system.

Authors:  Soo-Nyung Kim; Yun Hwan Kim; Kye-Hyun Nam; Seon-Kyung Lee; Tae Sung Lee; Ho-Sun Choi; Sei-Jun Han; Seung-Cheol Kim
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Sci       Date:  2016-05-13

6.  Using self-collection HPV testing to increase engagement in cervical cancer screening programs in rural Guatemala: a longitudinal analysis.

Authors:  Anna Gottschlich; Alvaro Rivera-Andrade; Kristin Bevilacqua; Audrey R Murchland; Ergest Isak; Christian S Alvarez; Gina Ogilvie; Thomas E Carey; Mark Prince; Michael Dean; Carlos Mendoza-Montano; Rafael Meza
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 3.295

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.