Suppr超能文献

人乳头瘤病毒检测、醋酸目视检查、细胞学检查及阴道镜检查准确性的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the accuracy of HPV tests, visual inspection with acetic acid, cytology, and colposcopy.

作者信息

Mustafa Reem A, Santesso Nancy, Khatib Rasha, Mustafa Ahmad A, Wiercioch Wojtek, Kehar Rohan, Gandhi Shreyas, Chen Yaolong, Cheung Adrienne, Hopkins Jessica, Ma Bin, Lloyd Nancy, Wu Darong, Broutet Nathalie, Schünemann Holger J

机构信息

Departments of Internal Medicine/Nephrology and Biomedical and Health Informatics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016 Mar;132(3):259-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.07.024. Epub 2015 Nov 12.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer screening is offered to women to identify and treat cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).

OBJECTIVES

To support WHO guidelines, a systematic review was performed to compare test accuracy of the HPV test, cytology (cervical smear), and unaided visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA); and to determine test accuracy of HPV and colposcopy impression.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Medline and Embase were searched up to September 2012, and experts were contacted for references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies of at least 100 nonpregnant women (aged ≥18years) not previously diagnosed with CIN were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two investigators independently screened and collected data. Pooled sensitivity and specificity, and absolute differences were calculated, and the quality of evidence assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

MAIN RESULTS

High to moderate quality evidence was found. The greatest difference in overtreatment occurred with VIA instead of the cervical smear (58 more per 1000 women). Differences in missed treatment ranged from 2-5 per 1000 women. For 1000 women screened positive and then sent to colposcopy, 464 would be falsely diagnosed with CIN grade 2-3 and treated.

CONCLUSIONS

Although differences in sensitivity between tests could be interpreted as large, absolute differences in missed diagnoses were small. By contrast, small differences in specificity resulted in fairly large absolute differences in overtreatment.

摘要

背景

为女性提供宫颈癌筛查以识别和治疗宫颈上皮内瘤变(CIN)。

目的

为支持世界卫生组织的指南,进行了一项系统评价,以比较人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)检测、细胞学检查(宫颈涂片)和醋酸肉眼观察法(VIA)的检测准确性;并确定HPV检测和阴道镜印象的检测准确性。

检索策略

检索了截至2012年9月的Medline和Embase数据库,并联系专家获取参考文献。

入选标准

纳入至少100名未被诊断为CIN的非妊娠女性(年龄≥18岁)的研究。

数据收集与分析

两名研究者独立筛选并收集数据。计算合并敏感性和特异性以及绝对差异,并使用GRADE(推荐分级评估、制定和评价)评估证据质量。

主要结果

发现了高质量到中等质量的证据。VIA而非宫颈涂片导致的过度治疗差异最大(每1000名女性多58例)。漏诊差异为每1000名女性2 - 5例。对于1000名筛查呈阳性然后送去做阴道镜检查的女性,464名将被误诊为CIN 2 - 3级并接受治疗。

结论

尽管不同检测方法之间的敏感性差异可被解释为较大,但漏诊的绝对差异较小。相比之下,特异性的微小差异导致过度治疗的绝对差异相当大。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验