Your browser doesn't support javascript.

BVS APS

Atenção Primária à Saúde

Home > Pesquisa > ()
XML
Imprimir Exportar

Formato de exportação:

Exportar

Email
Adicionar mais destinatários
| |

An online quality assurance program for colposcopy in a population-based cervical screening setting in Italy: results on colposcopic impression.

Cristiani, Paolo; Costa, Silvano; Schincaglia, Patrizia; Garutti, Paola; de Bianchi, Priscilla Sassoli; Naldoni, Carlo; Sideri, Mario; Bucchi, Lauro.
J Low Genit Tract Dis; 18(4): 309-13, 2014 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | Jun 2014 | ID: mdl-24886869
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: To report the results of an Internet-based colposcopy quality assurance program from a population-based cervical screening service in a large region of northern Italy. METHODS: In 2010 to 2011, a Web application was made accessible on the Web site of the regional administration. Fifty-nine colposcopists of the registered 65 participated. They logged-in, viewed a posted set of 50 high-quality digital colpophotographs selected by an expert committee, and rated them for colposcopic impression using a 4-tier classification (Negative; abnormal, grade 1 [G1]; abnormal, grade 2 [G2]; suspected invasive cancer [Cancer]) derived from the International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy 2002 classification. kappa (κ) coefficients for intercolposcopist agreement and colposcopist-committee agreement were calculated. RESULTS: Colposcopist-committee agreement was greater than intercolposcopist agreement (overall κ 0.69 vs 0.60, p<.001). The κ values for colposcopist-committee agreement were 0.83 on Negative, 0.53 on G1, 0.66 on G2, and 0.80 on Cancer (all p values for pairwise comparisons<.001, except for Negative vs Cancer [p=.078]). There was no systematic tendency for colposcopists to underestimate or overestimate the colposcopic findings (2-tailed sign test, p=.13). Overall colposcopist-committee agreement was greater among patients 35 years or older (p<.001) and for colposcopists with previous quality assurance experiences (p<.01). Only 0.2% of Negative impressions were formulated for a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse. As a parallel finding, the impression of Cancer predicted cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or less in 0.5% of cases. The histologic substrates of G1 were dispersed over a large spectrum. CONCLUSIONS: The reproducibility of colposcopic impression, when classified by trained colposcopists examining high-quality images, is higher than is generally thought.