| Literature DB >> 36046272 |
Moraima Lagos-Castillo1, María Guevara-Vizcarra2, Felipe Paredes-Campos3, Sathyatej Kosuri4, Gustavo Vilchez4.
Abstract
Objective This study was aimed at analyzing the validity and reliability of the Papanicolaou (Pap) test and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIAA) tests for cervical dysplasia screenings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Material and methods This was a retrospective study of patients 21 years or older seen at the Luis Negreiros Primary Care Center in Lima, Peru between 2020 and 2021, who underwent cervical dysplasia screening (Pap or VIAA). Relevant information regarding patient age, date of service, and Pap and VIAA results were collected. Parallel form reliability was analyzed with chi-square tests, and phi, contingency and Cramer's V coefficients. The validity of these tests was analyzed through the calculation of the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values with confidence intervals. A p-value less than 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Results From 4,503 records, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for Pap were 0.87 (0.81-0.92), 1.0 (1.0-1.0), 1.0 (1.0-1.0) and 0.99 (0.98-0.99), respectively, and those for VIAA were 0.22 (0.14-0.31), 0.10 (0.10-0.10), 0.53 (0.38-0.69) and 0.10 (0.10-0.10), respectively. Test validity varied slightly according to patient age and the year of testing. The correlation, although significant, was inverse; chi-square = 39.18, p <0.001, phi = -0.60, contingency = 0.51 and Cramer's V = -0.59. Conclusion The validity and reliability of Pap testing and VIAA for cervical dysplasia screening significantly decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The correlation between these tests, although significant, was inverse. More larger-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings and understand the reasons underlying the decreased effectiveness of these tests.Entities:
Keywords: acetic acid; colposcopy; covid-19; cytological techniques; early detection of cancer; papanicolaou test; sars-cov-2; sensitivity and specificity; uterine cervical neoplasms; vaginal smears
Year: 2022 PMID: 36046272 PMCID: PMC9417588 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27364
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Accuracy Levels of Diagnostic Tests (N=4503)
| Estimate | Standard Error | Confidence Interval (95%) | |
| Pap test (Prevalence = 2.7%) | |||
| Sensitivity | 0.87 | 0.02 | 0.81 – 0.92 |
| Specificity | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 – 1.00 |
| Positive Predictive Value | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 – 1.00 |
| Negative Predictive Value | 0.99 | 0.01 | 0.98 – 0.99 |
| Visual inspection with acetic acid (Prevalence = 19.1%) | |||
| Sensitivity | 0.22 | 0.04 | 0.14 - 0.31 |
| Specificity | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 – 0.10 |
| Positive Predictive Value | 0.53 | 0.07 | 0.38 – 0.69 |
| Negative Predictive Value | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 – 0.10 |
Diagnostic Testing Accuracy Parameters According to Testing Year (N=4503)
| Diagnostic Testing Accuracy Parameters According to Testing Year | ||||
| Year | 2020 | 2021 | ||
| Pap test | ||||
| Estimate (95% confidence interval) | ||||
| Sensitivity | 0.91 (0.84 – 0.98) | 0.83 (0.75 – 0.91) | ||
| Specificity | 1.00 (1.00 – 1.00) | 1.00 (1.00 – 1.00) | ||
| Positive Predictive Value | 1.00 (1.00 – 1.00) | 1.00 (1.00 – 1.00) | ||
| Negative Predictive Value | 0.99 (0.98 – 0.99) | 0.99 (0.98 – 0.99) | ||
| Visual inspection with acetic acid | ||||
| Estimate (95% confidence interval) | ||||
| Sensitivity | 0.26 (0.13 - 0.40) | 0.19 (0.08 - 0.30) | ||
| Specificity | 0.10 (0.10 – 0.10) | 0,10 (0.10 – 0.10) | ||
| Positive Predictive Value | 0.68 (0.46 - 0.91) | 0.43 (0.23 - 0.63) | ||
| Negative Predictive Value | 0.10 (0.10 - 0.10) | 0,00 (0.00 – 0.00) | ||
Diagnostic Testing Accuracy Parameters According to Patient Age (N= 4503)
| Diagnostic Testing Accuracy Parameters According to Patient Age | |||
| Maternal Age | 21 - 39 years | 40 - 64 years | > 64 years |
| Pap test | |||
| Estimate (95% confidence Interval) | |||
| Sensitivity | 0.80 (0.71 – 0.89) | 0.93 (0.88 – 0.99) | 1.00 (1.00 – 1.00) |
| Specificity | 1.00 (1.00 – 1.00) | 1.00 (1.00 – 1.00) | 1.00 (1.00 – 1.00) |
| Positive Predictive Value | 1.00 (1.00 – 1.00) | 1.00 (1.00 – 1.00) | 1.00 (1.00 – 1.00) |
| Negative Predictive Value | 0.99 (0.98 – 0.99) | 0.99 (0.98 – 0.99) | 1.00 (1.00 – 1.00) |
| Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid | |||
| Estimate (95% confidence Interval) | |||
| Sensitivity | 0.24 (0.12 - 0.35) | 0.21 (0.08 – 0.34) | N/A |
| Specificity | 0.10 (0.10 – 0.10) | 0.10 (0.10 – 0.10) | |
| Positive Predictive Value | 0.48 (0.29 – 0.66) | 0.66 (0.39 – 0.93) | |
| Negative Predictive Value | 0.10 (0.10 – 0.10) | 0.10 (0.10 – 0.10) | |
Figure 1Predictive Values of Pap test and Visual Inspection With Acetic Acid (N = 4,503).
Predictive values (positive and negative) according to the estimated prevalence according to sensitivity and specificity for screening tests for cervical cancer of Pap test (A) and visual inspection with acetic acid (B). In A, it is observed that the negative predictive value of the Pap test maintains a gradual decrease to an approximate prevalence of 80.0%. In B, it is observed that the positive predictive value gradually increases to an estimated prevalence of approximately 70.0%.