Obstetrics & Gynecology Email Alerts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Obstetrics & Gynecology 2007;110:833-840
© 2007 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jeronimo, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jeronimo, J.

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Interobserver Agreement in the Evaluation of Digitized Cervical Images

Jose Jeronimo, MD1, L. Stewart Massad, MD2, Philip E. Castle, PhD, MPH1, Sholom Wacholder, PhD1, Mark Schiffman, MD, MPH1 for the National Institutes of Health (NIH)–American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) Research Group*

From the 1Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; and 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the agreement among multiple expert colposcopists evaluating high-resolution digitized cervigrams taken from patients with a variety of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection states and previous cervigram interpretations.

METHODS: Twenty expert colposcopists evaluated 939 digitized images of the uterine cervix obtained after the application of 5% acetic acid during the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. Twenty images selected to represent a broad range were graded by all the colposcopists. The remaining 919 pictures were distributed by stratified random sampling, such that each image was evaluated by two colposcopists, and each expert evaluated 112 images with similar distributions of cervigram diagnoses and HPV DNA test results. We evaluated interrater agreement among the pairs of colposcopists and confirmed the conclusions using the 20 images they all graded.

RESULTS: Pairs of colposcopists agreed on the diagnosis for only 56.8% of images. Similar agreement was seen regarding number of visible lesions (of low-grade or greater). This variability in ratings remained when the images were stratified by final histologic diagnosis or HPV status. The results were confirmed by the presence of large variability in ratings (ranging in some cases from normal to cancer) for the 20 images graded by all colposcopists.

CONCLUSION: Colposcopic diagnosis using static images is poorly reproducible and might reflect similar problems in clinical practice. Researchers should question the use of colposcopic images as a reference standard for teaching and evaluating the presence or severity of disease.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
J. T. Cox
More Questions About the Accuracy of Colposcopy: What Does This Mean for Cervical Cancer Prevention?
Obstet. Gynecol., June 1, 2008; 111(6): 1266 - 1267.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
L. S. Massad, J. Jeronimo, M. Schiffman, and for the National Institutes of Health/American Soc
Interobserver Agreement in the Assessment of Components of Colposcopic Grading
Obstet. Gynecol., June 1, 2008; 111(6): 1279 - 1284.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NEJMHome page
A. Lytwyn, L. Elit, J. W. Sellors, B. T. Lin, A. P. Frank, J. Berkhof, C. J. Meijer, R. P. Fields, E. L. Franco, M.-H. Mayrand, et al.
Human Papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou Screening Tests for Cervical Cancer
N. Engl. J. Med., February 7, 2008; 358(6): 641 - 644.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.