OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated estimation of the accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) in detecting true disease. METHODS: A PubMed search provided original studies on VIA accuracy in which the gold standard for confirmatory testing was histology alone or colposcopy followed by biopsy. The numbers of true-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative results were extracted from each study. Meta-analyses were then performed with different categories of studies according to confirmatory diagnosis threshold, category of women who received confirmatory testing, and whether a medical condition that could affect VIA accuracy was present at screening. The reference category consisted of 26 studies in which VIA was performed on asymptomatic women who all underwent confirmatory testing and in which the disease threshold was cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2. RESULTS: We report an 80% sensitivity (range, 79%-82%) and a 92% specificity (range, 91%-92%) for VIA. Study region, capacity of screener, or size of the study population did not modify VIA accuracy. The positive predictive value was 10% (range, 9%-10%). CONCLUSION: Screening for precancerous and cancerous cervical lesions using VIA is a simple, low-cost, and efficient alternative to cytologic testing in low-resource areas.
OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated estimation of the accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) in detecting true disease. METHODS: A PubMed search provided original studies on VIA accuracy in which the gold standard for confirmatory testing was histology alone or colposcopy followed by biopsy. The numbers of true-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative results were extracted from each study. Meta-analyses were then performed with different categories of studies according to confirmatory diagnosis threshold, category of women who received confirmatory testing, and whether a medical condition that could affect VIA accuracy was present at screening. The reference category consisted of 26 studies in which VIA was performed on asymptomatic women who all underwent confirmatory testing and in which the disease threshold was cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2. RESULTS: We report an 80% sensitivity (range, 79%-82%) and a 92% specificity (range, 91%-92%) for VIA. Study region, capacity of screener, or size of the study population did not modify VIA accuracy. The positive predictive value was 10% (range, 9%-10%). CONCLUSION: Screening for precancerous and cancerous cervical lesions using VIA is a simple, low-cost, and efficient alternative to cytologic testing in low-resource areas.
Authors: Proma Paul; Jennifer L Winkler; Rosario M Bartolini; Mary E Penny; Trinh Thu Huong; Le Thi Nga; Edward Kumakech; Emmanuel Mugisha; Jose Jeronimo Journal: Oncologist Date: 2013-11-11
Authors: Christina Fitzmaurice; Daniel Dicker; Amanda Pain; Hannah Hamavid; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Michael F MacIntyre; Christine Allen; Gillian Hansen; Rachel Woodbrook; Charles Wolfe; Randah R Hamadeh; Ami Moore; Andrea Werdecker; Bradford D Gessner; Braden Te Ao; Brian McMahon; Chante Karimkhani; Chuanhua Yu; Graham S Cooke; David C Schwebel; David O Carpenter; David M Pereira; Denis Nash; Dhruv S Kazi; Diego De Leo; Dietrich Plass; Kingsley N Ukwaja; George D Thurston; Kim Yun Jin; Edgar P Simard; Edward Mills; Eun-Kee Park; Ferrán Catalá-López; Gabrielle deVeber; Carolyn Gotay; Gulfaraz Khan; H Dean Hosgood; Itamar S Santos; Janet L Leasher; Jasvinder Singh; James Leigh; Jost B Jonas; Jost Jonas; Juan Sanabria; Justin Beardsley; Kathryn H Jacobsen; Ken Takahashi; Richard C Franklin; Luca Ronfani; Marcella Montico; Luigi Naldi; Marcello Tonelli; Johanna Geleijnse; Max Petzold; Mark G Shrime; Mustafa Younis; Naohiro Yonemoto; Nicholas Breitborde; Paul Yip; Farshad Pourmalek; Paulo A Lotufo; Alireza Esteghamati; Graeme J Hankey; Raghib Ali; Raimundas Lunevicius; Reza Malekzadeh; Robert Dellavalle; Robert Weintraub; Robyn Lucas; Roderick Hay; David Rojas-Rueda; Ronny Westerman; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Sandra Nolte; Scott Patten; Scott Weichenthal; Semaw Ferede Abera; Seyed-Mohammad Fereshtehnejad; Ivy Shiue; Tim Driscoll; Tommi Vasankari; Ubai Alsharif; Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar; Vasiliy V Vlassov; W S Marcenes; Wubegzier Mekonnen; Yohannes Adama Melaku; Yuichiro Yano; Al Artaman; Ismael Campos; Jennifer MacLachlan; Ulrich Mueller; Daniel Kim; Matias Trillini; Babak Eshrati; Hywel C Williams; Kenji Shibuya; Rakhi Dandona; Kinnari Murthy; Benjamin Cowie; Azmeraw T Amare; Carl Abelardo Antonio; Carlos Castañeda-Orjuela; Coen H van Gool; Francesco Violante; In-Hwan Oh; Kedede Deribe; Kjetil Soreide; Luke Knibbs; Maia Kereselidze; Mark Green; Rosario Cardenas; Nobhojit Roy; Taavi Tillmann; Taavi Tillman; Yongmei Li; Hans Krueger; Lorenzo Monasta; Subhojit Dey; Sara Sheikhbahaei; Nima Hafezi-Nejad; G Anil Kumar; Chandrashekhar T Sreeramareddy; Lalit Dandona; Haidong Wang; Stein Emil Vollset; Ali Mokdad; Joshua A Salomon; Rafael Lozano; Theo Vos; Mohammad Forouzanfar; Alan Lopez; Christopher Murray; Mohsen Naghavi Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Margaret Z Wang; Rui-Mei Feng; Shaoming Wang; Xian-Zhi Duan; Dong Li; Xun Zhang; Rong Mu; Youlin Qiao; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Renicha McCree; Mary Rose Giattas; Vikrant V Sahasrabuddhe; Pauline E Jolly; Michelle Y Martin; Stuart Lawrence Usdan; Connie Kohler; Nedra Lisovicz Journal: Oncologist Date: 2015-04-29
Authors: Mark C Pierce; YaoYao Guan; Mary Kate Quinn; Xun Zhang; Wen-Hua Zhang; You-Lin Qiao; Philip Castle; Rebecca Richards-Kortum Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2012-08-27