ArticleGynecologic oncology2022
Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of colposcopic impression based on a single image versus a two-minute time series of colposcopic images.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Indicators to identify cancer screening providers with suboptimal case detection: A scoping review.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Time-lapsed colposcopy image-based segmentation of cervical lesion areas.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Raman microspectroscopy for cervical cancer diagnosis: an ex-vivo cryopreserved tissue analysis.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveColposcopy is an important part of cervical screening/management programs. Colposcopic appearance is often classified, for teaching and telemedicine, based on static images that do not reveal the dynamics of acetowhitening. We compared the accuracy and reproducibility of colposcopic impression based on a single image at one minute after application of acetic acid versus a time-series of 17 sequential images over two minutes.
methodsApproximately 5000 colposcopic examinations conducted with the DYSIS colposcopic system were divided into 10 random sets, each assigned to a separate expert colposcopist. Colposcopists first classified single two-dimensional images at one minute and then a time-series of 17 sequential images as 'normal,' 'indeterminate,' 'high grade,' or 'cancer'. Ratings were compared to histologic diagnoses. Additionally, 5 colposcopists reviewed a subset of 200 single images and 200 time series to estimate intra- and inter-rater reliability.
resultsOf 4640 patients with adequate images, only 24.4% were correctly categorized by single image visual assessment (11% of 64 cancers; 31% of 605 CIN3; 22.4% of 558 CIN2; 23.9% of 3412 < CIN2). Individual colposcopist accuracy was low; Youden indices (sensitivity plus specificity minus one) ranged from 0.07 to 0.24. Use of the time-series increased the proportion of images classified as normal, regardless of histology. Intra-rater reliability was substantial (weighted kappa = 0.64); inter-rater reliability was fair ( weighted kappa = 0.26).
conclusionSubstantial variation exists in visual assessment of colposcopic images, even when a 17-image time series showing the two-minute process of acetowhitening is presented. We are currently evaluating whether deep-learning image evaluation can assist classification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.