Szarewski A, Cuzick J, Edwards R, Butler B, Singer A
Department of Epidemiology and Statistics, Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Lincoln's Inn Fields, London.
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991 Mar;98(3):313-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1991.tb13400.x.
The cervicography and concurrent endocervical brush smear results obtained in 1162 women screened at the Marie Stopes Clinic were analysed. Colposcopy and biopsy results were obtained for positive cases. A comparison was made with a group of 1007 women attending the same clinic for routine cytology only. Nearly 10% of women who were screened by cervicography had a technically defective cervicogram, the main single reason being that the view was obscured by blood. Routine cytology was positive in 1%, while cervicography was positive in 13%, where positivity was defined as a result leading to a recommendation for colposcopy. The false positive rate for cervicography was 26%. Even after adjustment, this difference was highly significant (P less than 0.0001).
对在玛丽·斯托克斯诊所接受筛查的1162名女性的宫颈造影检查结果及同时进行的宫颈刷片涂片结果进行了分析。对阳性病例进行了阴道镜检查和活检。与仅在同一诊所进行常规细胞学检查的1007名女性组成的一组进行了比较。通过宫颈造影筛查的女性中，近10%的宫颈造影检查存在技术缺陷，主要原因是视野被血液遮挡。常规细胞学检查阳性率为1%，而宫颈造影检查阳性率为13%，阳性定义为结果导致建议进行阴道镜检查。宫颈造影检查的假阳性率为26%。即使经过调整，这种差异仍然非常显著（P<0.0001）。
