ArticleAnalytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam)2026
Diagnostic Accuracy Rate of Tertiary Center Colposcopy Unit.
Article in Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Accuracy Rate of Tertiary Center Colposcopy Unit.Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionColposcopy plays a central role in the evaluation of cervical intraepithelial lesions; however, its diagnostic performance varies widely. While high sensitivity is desirable, low specificity may lead to unnecessary excisional procedures. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of colposcopy and its potential contribution to overtreatment in a tertiary referral center.
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included 150 patients who underwent LEEP between April 2023 and September 2024. Colposcopic impressions were compared with LEEP histopathological outcomes. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios were calculated. A subgroup analysis was performed for HPV16-positive patients.
resultsColposcopy demonstrated high sensitivity (93.9%, 95% CI: 87.3-97.4) but low specificity (31.4%, 95% CI: 20.2-45.0), with an overall accuracy of 72.7% (95% CI: 65.0-79.2). The PPV and NPV were 72.6% (95% CI: 64.2-79.7) and 72.7% (95% CI: 51.9-86.9), respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.37 and 0.19. Notably, 35 patients (23.3%) were false positives. In HPV16-positive patients, sensitivity was 80.8% (95% CI: 71.7-87.5), specificity was 33.3% (95% CI: 21.9-47.1), and accuracy was 64.7% (95% CI: 56.7-72.0).
conclusionAlthough colposcopy is highly sensitive, its low specificity may result in substantial overtreatment, particularly in tertiary referral settings.
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.