Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28107486›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

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

Amidu O Raifu, Mariam El-Zein, Ghislain Sangwa-Lugoma, Agnihotram Ramanakumar, Stephen D Walter, Eduardo L Franco, Congo Screening Study Group

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Assessing Inter-Annotator Agreement for Medical Image Segmentation.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Amidu O RaifuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Mariam El-ZeinDivision of Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Ghislain Sangwa-LugomaDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Kinshasa, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo.
Agnihotram RamanakumarDivision of Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Stephen D WalterDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Eduardo L FrancoDivision of Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4409-8084
Congo Screening Study Group
McGill University · CAMcMaster University · CAUniversity of Kinshasa · CDWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVisual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and Lugol's iodine (VILI) are used to screen women for cervical cancer in low-resource settings. Little is known about correlates of their diagnostic accuracy by healthcare provider. We examined determinants of VIA and VILI screening accuracy by examiner in a cross-sectional screening study of 1528 women aged 30 years or older in a suburb of Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo.

methodsWe used a logistic regression model for sensitivity and specificity to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of VIA and VILI, independently performed by nurse and physician, as a function of sociodemographic and reproductive health characteristics.

resultsNurses rated tests as positive more often than physicians (36.3% vs 30.2% for VIA, 26.2% vs 25.2% for VILI). Women's age was the most important determinant of performance. It was inversely associated with sensitivity (nurse's VIA: p<0.001, nurse's VILI: p = 0.018, physician's VIA: p = 0.005, physician's VILI: p = 0.006) but positively associated with specificity (all four combinations: p<0.001). Increasing parity adversely affected sensitivity and specificity, but the effects on sensitivity were significant for nurses only. The screening performance of physician's assessment was significantly better than the nurse's (difference in sensitivity: VIA = 13%, VILI = 16%; difference in specificity: VIA = 6%, VILI = 1%).

conclusionsAge and parity influence the performance of visual tests for cervical cancer screening. Proper training of local healthcare providers in the conduct of these tests should take into account these factors for improved performance of VIA and VILI in detecting cervical precancerous lesions among women in limited-resource settings.

Indexed as

Acetic AcidAdultDemocratic Republic of the CongoEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIodidesMiddle AgedNursesPhysiciansReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsAcetic AcidIodidesLugol's solution

Identifiers

PMID28107486
PMCPMC5249231
OpenAlexW2573686165

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.