Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36879505›Full record

ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2023

Accuracy of colposcopy in the Swedish screening program.

Emilia Alfonzo, Chenyang Zhang, Forogh Daneshpip, Björn Strander

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Diagnostic Accuracy Rate of Tertiary Center Colposcopy Unit.Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam) · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Accuracy of colposcopy in the Swedish screening program.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Emilia AlfonzoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2645-0988
Chenyang ZhangRegional Cancer Center West, Western Healthcare Region, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Forogh DaneshpipDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Björn StranderDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Region Västra Götaland · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

Hjalmar Svensson Foundation HJSV2020068LUA/ALF 11315
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSensitivity and specificity of colposcopy vary greatly between studies and efficacy in clinical studies seldom corresponds with effectiveness in a real-life setting. It is unclear whether colposcopists' experience affects assessment; studies show divergent results. The study's objective was to investigate the accuracy of colposcopies in the Swedish screening program, the variability in colposcopists' assessments and whether degree of experience affects accuracy in a routine setting. MATERIAL AND

methodsCross-sectional register study. All colposcopic assessments with a concomitant histopathological sample from women aged at least 18 years, performed between 1999 and September 2020 in Sweden. The main outcome measure was accuracy. The accuracy of colposcopic assessments was calculated as overall agreement with linked biopsies, with three outcomes: Normal vs Atypical, Normal vs Low-Grade Atypical vs High-Grade Atypical, and Non-High-Grade Atypical vs High-Grade Atypical. A time-trend analysis was performed. The accuracy of identifiable colposcopists related to experience was analyzed.

resultsIn total, 82 289 colposcopic assessments with linked biopsies were included for analysis of the outcome Normal vs Atypical; average accuracy was 63%. Overrating colposcopic findings was four times more common than underrating. No time trend in accuracy was noted during the study period. Accuracy in distinguishing High-Grade from Non-High-Grade lesions was better: 76%. Among identifiable colposcopists, overall accuracy was 67%. Some had significantly better accuracy than others, but no correlation with experience was found.

conclusionsColposcopy, including in a referral setting, has low accuracy in distinguishing Normal from Atypical. Increased experience alone does not lead to improvement. This is supported by the substantial differences in performance between colposcopists.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdolescentAdultBiopsyColposcopyCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansPregnancySwedenaccuracycervical cancer screening programcolposcopic assessmentcolposcopic experience

Identifiers

PMID36879505
PMCPMC10072243
OpenAlexW4323348654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.