Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorManga, Simon
dc.contributor.authorParham, Groesbeck
dc.contributor.authorBenjamin, Nkoum
dc.contributor.authorNulah, Kathleen
dc.contributor.authorSheldon, Lisa Kennedy.
dc.contributor.authorWelty, Edith
dc.contributor.authorOgembo, Javier Gordon
dc.contributor.authorBradford, Leslie
dc.contributor.authorSando, Zacharie
dc.contributor.authorShields, Ray
dc.contributor.authorWelty, Thomas
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:06.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T16:55:48Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T16:55:48Z
dc.date.issued2015-10-01
dc.date.submitted2017-08-11
dc.identifier.citationJ Low Genit Tract Dis. 2015 Oct;19(4):288-94. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000133. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0000000000000133">Link to article on publisher's site</a>
dc.identifier.issn1089-2591 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/LGT.0000000000000133
dc.identifier.pmid26164295
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/42788
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization recommends visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) for cervical cancer screening in resource-limited settings. In Cameroon, we use digital cervicography (DC) to capture images of the cervix after VIA. This study evaluated interobserver agreement of DC results, compared DC with histopathologic results, and examined interobserver agreement among screening methods. METHOD: Three observers, blinded to each other's interpretations, evaluated 540 DC photographs as follows: (1) negative/positive for acetowhite lesions or cancer and (2) assigned a presumptive diagnosis of histopathologic lesion grade in the 91 cases that had a histopathologic diagnosis. Observer A was the actual screening nurse; B, a reproductive health nurse; C, a gynecologic oncologist; and D, the histopathologic diagnosis. We compared inter-rater agreement of DC impressions among observers A, B, and C, and with D, with Cohen kappas. RESULTS: For interpretations of DC, (negative/positive) strengths of agreement of paired observers were the following: A/B, moderate [K, 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47-0.61], A/C, fair (K, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.29-0.44), and B/C, moderate (K, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.37-0.53). For presumptive pathologic grading, strengths of agreement for weighted Ks were as follows: A/B, moderate (K, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.28-0.56); A/C, fair (K, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20-0.46); B/C, fair (K, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.40-0.67); A/D, moderate (K, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.74); B/D, moderate (K, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.46-0.70); and C/D, moderate (K, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37-0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver agreement of DC interpretations was mostly moderate among the 3 observers, between them and histopathology, and comparable to that of other visual-based screening methods, i.e., VIA, cytology, or colposcopy.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=26164295&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0000000000000133
dc.subjectFemale Urogenital Diseases and Pregnancy Complications
dc.subjectMaternal and Child Health
dc.subjectObstetrics and Gynecology
dc.subjectWomen's Health
dc.titleCervical Cancer Screening in Cameroon: Interobserver Agreement on the Interpretation of Digital Cervicography Results
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleJournal of lower genital tract disease
dc.source.volume19
dc.source.issue4
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/obgyn_pp/143
dc.identifier.contextkey10586767
html.description.abstract<p>OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization recommends visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) for cervical cancer screening in resource-limited settings. In Cameroon, we use digital cervicography (DC) to capture images of the cervix after VIA. This study evaluated interobserver agreement of DC results, compared DC with histopathologic results, and examined interobserver agreement among screening methods.</p> <p>METHOD: Three observers, blinded to each other's interpretations, evaluated 540 DC photographs as follows: (1) negative/positive for acetowhite lesions or cancer and (2) assigned a presumptive diagnosis of histopathologic lesion grade in the 91 cases that had a histopathologic diagnosis. Observer A was the actual screening nurse; B, a reproductive health nurse; C, a gynecologic oncologist; and D, the histopathologic diagnosis. We compared inter-rater agreement of DC impressions among observers A, B, and C, and with D, with Cohen kappas.</p> <p>RESULTS: For interpretations of DC, (negative/positive) strengths of agreement of paired observers were the following: A/B, moderate [K, 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47-0.61], A/C, fair (K, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.29-0.44), and B/C, moderate (K, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.37-0.53). For presumptive pathologic grading, strengths of agreement for weighted Ks were as follows: A/B, moderate (K, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.28-0.56); A/C, fair (K, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20-0.46); B/C, fair (K, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.40-0.67); A/D, moderate (K, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.74); B/D, moderate (K, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.46-0.70); and C/D, moderate (K, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37-0.63).</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver agreement of DC interpretations was mostly moderate among the 3 observers, between them and histopathology, and comparable to that of other visual-based screening methods, i.e., VIA, cytology, or colposcopy.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathobgyn_pp/143
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology
dc.source.pages288-94


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record