ArticleJournal of clinical pathology1996
Interobserver variation in the reporting of cervical colposcopic biopsy specimens: comparison of grading systems.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic concordance and discordance in digital pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical pathology · 2021Pooled it
- The development of "automated visual evaluation" for cervical cancer screening: The promise and challenges in adapting deep-learning for clinical testing: Interdisciplinary principles of automated visual evaluation in cervical screening.International journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Cervical Pre-cancers: Biopsy and Immunohistochemistry.CytoJournal · 2022Review
- A whole-slide image grading benchmark and tissue classification for cervical cancer precursor lesions with inter-observer variability.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2021Article
- Distal Vessel Imaging via Intra-arterial Flat Panel Detector CTA during Mechanical Thrombectomy.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2021Article
- The Interpretive Variability of Cervical Biopsies and Its Relationship to HPV Status.The American journal of surgical pathology · 2015Article
- A comparison of cervical histopathology variability using whole slide digitized images versus glass slides: experience with a statewide registry.Human pathology · 2013Article
- Cervical histopathology variability among laboratories: a population-based statewide investigation.American journal of clinical pathology · 2013Article
- [Diagnosis and grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasias].Der Pathologe · 2012Article
- Article
- Our approach to squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix.Journal of clinical pathology · 2007Review
- Dynamic behavioural interpretation of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia with molecular biomarkers.Journal of clinical pathology · 2006Review
- The prognosis in cervical epithelial changes of uncertain significance is similar to that of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1.Journal of clinical pathology · 2001Article
- Assessing diagnostic errors: when is suspension of a pathologist justified?Journal of clinical pathology · 1998Article
- Internal quality assurance activities of a surgical pathology department in an Australian teaching hospital.Journal of clinical pathology · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo assess interobserver variation in reporting cervical colposcopic biopsy specimens and to determine whether a modified Bethesda grading system results in better interobserver agreement than the traditional cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grading system.
methodsOne hundred and twenty five consecutive cervical colposcopic biopsy specimens were assessed independently by six histopathologists. Specimens were classified using the traditional CIN grading system as normal, koilocytosis, CIN I, CIN II, or CIN III. The specimens were also classified using a modified Bethesda grading system as either normal, low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) or high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). Participants were also asked to categorise biopsy specimens by the CIN system with the addition of the recently proposed category "basal abnormalities of uncertain significance (BAUS)". The degree of agreement between participants was assessed by kappa statistics.
resultsUsing the CIN system, interobserver agreement was generally poor: unweighted and weighted kappa values between individual pairs of observers ranging from 0.05 to 0.34 (average 0.20) and from 0.20 to 0.54 (average 0.36), respectively. With the modified Bethesda system, interobserver agreement was better but still poor: unweighted and weighted kappa values ranging from 0.15 to 0.58 (average 0.30) and from 0.21 to 0.61 (average 0.36), respectively. There was little or no agreement between observers in the diagnosis of BAUS.
conclusionsInterobserver agreement in the reporting of cervical colposcopic biopsy specimens using the CIN grading system is poor. Agreement, while still poor, is better when a modified Bethesda grading system is used. There is little or no consensus in the diagnosis of BAUS.
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.