Sankaranarayanan R, Gaffikin L, Jacob M, Sellors J, Robles S (2005) A critical assessment of screening methods for cervical neoplasia. Bull World Health Organ 79(10):954–962Ĭhen ZP, Chen HM, Lee TT (2008) Use of compact digital cervicography: an adjuvant screening tool for precancerous cervical lesions. Sankaranarayanan R, Budukh AM, Rajkumar R (2001) Effective screening programmes for cervical cancer in low- and middle-income developing countries. doi: 10.1363/ifpp.35.147.09Ĭhumworathayi B, Limpaphayom K, Srisupundit S, Lumbiganon P (2006) VIA and cryotherapy: doing what’s best. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health 35(3):147–154. Sherris J, Wittet S, Kleine A, Sellors J, Luciani S, Sankaranarayanan R, Barone MA (2009) Evidence-based, alternative cervical cancer screening approaches in low-resource settings. Parham GP (2003) Comparison of cell collection and direct visualization cervical cancer screening adjuncts.
McCrory DC, Matchar DB, Bastian L, Datta S, Hasselblad V, Hickey J, Myers E, Nanda K (1999) Evaluation of cervical cytology. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(20000815)89:43.0.CO 2-5ĭenny L, Kuhn L, Risi L, Richart RM, Pollack A, Lorincz A, Kostecki F, Wright TC Jr (2000) Two-stage cervical cancer screening: an alternative for resource-poor settings. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19990924)83:13.0.CO 2-Uĭenny L, Kuhn L, Pollack A, Wainwright H, Wright TC Jr (2000) Evaluation of alternative methods of cervical cancer screening for resource-poor settings. Nieminen P, Kallio M, Anttila A, Hakama M (1999) Organised versus spontaneous Pap-smear screening for cervical cancer: a case–control study. Br J Cancer 73(8):1001–1005Īlmonte M, Ferreccio C, Winkler JL, Cuzick J, Tsu V, Robles S, Takahashi R, Sasieni P (2007) Cervical screening by visual inspection, HPV testing, liquid-based and conventional cytology in Amazonian Peru. The National Co-ordinating Network for Cervical Screening Working Group. Sasieni PD, Cuzick J, Lynch-Farmery E (1996) Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. Ronco G, Giorgi Rossi P (2008) New paradigms in cervical cancer prevention: opportunities and risks. Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Gaffikin L, Limpahayom KK, Lumbiganon P, Warakamin S, King J, Yi B, Ringers P, Blumenthal PD (2002) Costs and benefits of different strategies to screen for cervical cancer in less-developed countries. Adjuvant methods of screening such as VIA can be a valuable alternative to the Pap test for cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings.įerlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM (2010) Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. The Pap test had low sensitivity but high specificity, whereas VIA had a high sensitivity in addition to being easy and low-cost.
Of the total of 100 women with the mean age 36.0 years, 17 cases were recognized positive for abnormal cervical cell by gold standard. All women underwent colposcopic biopsy as the gold standard in comparing the methods. This is a cross-sectional study on 100 women in the age group of 20–60 years, sequentially using the Pap test, the VIA, and the DC for screening. To compare the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), and accuracy of Pap smear, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and digital cervicography (DC).
0 kommentar(er)
