ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2024
Reproducibility of colposcopy quality indicators-A survey among members of the European Federation for Colposcopy.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Negative margins and negative HPV tests after large loop excision of the transformation zone: A nationwide historical cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Consensus on Quality Standards for Colposcopy and Colposcopy Training From the Latin-American Federation of Lower Genital Tract Pathology and Colposcopy.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2025Article
- Reproducibility of colposcopy quality indicators-A survey among members of the European Federation for Colposcopy.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionColposcopy is an important part of the diagnostic work-up of women with an abnormal cervical screening test as it is used to guide the collection of biopsies. Although quality assurance has been used in the evaluation of screening programs, not much is known about quality indicators for the diagnostics and treatment of screen-positive women. Therefore, the European Federation for Colposcopy developed quality indicators aiming to support colposcopy practice across Europe. We performed a survey of colposcopy cases to determine if the quality indicators are understandable, relevant, and reproducible. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe conducted a survey among all members of the European Federation for Colposcopy Quality and Standards Group from November 2022 to March 2023. Members were asked to collect information on a total of 17 quality indicators for 50 women who had been newly referred for colposcopy due to an abnormal screening test between January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021. Results were reported descriptively.
resultsWe included data on 609 cases from 12 members across Europe. The majority of the quality indicators were either achieved or within reach of the agreed standard, often due to few countries with outlying data. One quality indicator had very low performance, although stratified results indicated that two countries had different clinical management of the patient type thereby skewing the results. In addition, discrepancies between the number of cases included in each quality indicator raised concerns regarding potential misunderstanding of the quality indicator and its objective.
conclusionsQuality indicators on colposcopy must be understandable to those collecting data, highlighting the importance of validating quality indicators before data collection.
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.