2003
DOI: 10.1067/mob.2003.153
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of four screening methods for cervical neoplasia in a developing country

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

5
40
3
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 82 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
5
40
3
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The sensitivity of VIA testing in detecting highgrade CIN and cervical cancer ranged from 67-79% and the specificity varied from 49-86% in previous crosssectional studies which used VIA testing as a primary screening test (Denny et al, 2002;Cronje et al, 2003;Sankaranarayanan et al, 2004;Sankaranarayanan et al, 2005). Our study demonstrated overall sensitivity and specificity of 59.4% and 76.2%, respectively of VIA testing in detecting high-grade CIN in women with minor cervical cytological abnormalities.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 48%
“…The sensitivity of VIA testing in detecting highgrade CIN and cervical cancer ranged from 67-79% and the specificity varied from 49-86% in previous crosssectional studies which used VIA testing as a primary screening test (Denny et al, 2002;Cronje et al, 2003;Sankaranarayanan et al, 2004;Sankaranarayanan et al, 2005). Our study demonstrated overall sensitivity and specificity of 59.4% and 76.2%, respectively of VIA testing in detecting high-grade CIN in women with minor cervical cytological abnormalities.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 48%
“…It was also in agreement with the findings of Cronje et al 2003 who reported in their study about comparison of four screening methods for cervical neoplasia in a developing country that the specificity of VIA was 48.5%. [19] However this result was in disagreement with the findings of Sankaranarayanan et al [8,20] who reported a much higher VIA specificity of 65% & 81.9%, respectively.…”
Section: Itemscontrasting
confidence: 57%
“…Our findings were like that reported by Osmanabad district RCT. [11] While Cronjé et al 2003 [12] reported a higher prevalence of LSIL and above smears, Luthra et al [9] found lower prevalence (dysplasias 1.4% and carcinoma 0.15%). In contrary Ghosh et al, 2013, [13] reported abnormal Pap smear in 3.7% cases only while Saleh et al 2013, [14] in an Egyptian study, as 4%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The estimated prevalence by Cronjé et al of CIN 2 was 4.6%, and CIN3 was 2.8 % while invasive lesion was found in 0.8%. [12] Our study has taken three thresholds for consideration of Pap smear as positive. First taking ASCUS and above as positive, second, LSIL and above as positive and third HSIL and above as positive.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%