2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.01.024
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Screening for cervical carcinoma using visual inspection with acetic acid

Abstract: Visual inspection with acetic acid, although associated with a relatively high rate of false-positive results, is a valuable test for the screening of cervical carcinoma.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
6
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
2
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…5 However, there is some evidence that improved training may reduce this rate. 15 A recent meta-analysis found VIA to have 80% sensitivity (consistent with previous measures at approximately 79% sensitivity) and 92% specificity (an increase from the previously measured 85% specificity) for early detection of cervical cancer.…”
Section: Cervical Cancer Screeningsupporting
confidence: 68%
“…5 However, there is some evidence that improved training may reduce this rate. 15 A recent meta-analysis found VIA to have 80% sensitivity (consistent with previous measures at approximately 79% sensitivity) and 92% specificity (an increase from the previously measured 85% specificity) for early detection of cervical cancer.…”
Section: Cervical Cancer Screeningsupporting
confidence: 68%
“…The screen positive rate of 18.2% is much higher than rates reported in the literature, which range from 4% -8% in similar patient populations [4,9,23]. This may reflect the small sample size as well as selection bias, in that women with ongoing gynecologic issues were more likely to present at the time the project was initiated.…”
Section: Colposcopymentioning
confidence: 68%
“…One possibility is publication bias, where only studies with participation nearing the 70% effectiveness threshold report participation. In our review of 21 studies comparing alternative screening methods, the majority (14/21, 67%) did not report participation rates at all [5], [6], [8], [9], [10], [16], [17], [18], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%