Dataset Information

Reporting and Assessing the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We adapted the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool for studies of cervical cancer screening and management and used the adapted tool to evaluate the quality of studies included in a systematic review supporting the 2019 Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines.

Methods

We evaluated the quality of all studies included in our systematic review for postcolposcopy (n = 5) and posttreatment (n = 23) surveillance using QUADAS-2 criteria. Subsequently, we adapted signaling questions to indications of cervical cancer screening and management. An iterative process was carried out to evaluate interrater agreement between 2 study authors (M.A.C. and N.W.). Discrepant ratings were discussed, and criteria were adapted accordingly. We also evaluated the influence of study quality on risk estimates and between study variation using stratified subgroup meta-analyses.

Results

Twelve signaling questions for bias assessment that were adapted to or newly developed for cervical cancer screening and management are described here. Interrater agreement on bias assessment increased from 70% to 83% during the adaptation process. Detailed assessment of bias and applicability showed that all studies on postcolposcopy management and 90% of studies on posttreatment management had high risk of bias in at least 1 domain. Most commonly, high risk of bias was observed for the patient selection domain, indicating the heterogeneity of study designs and clinical practice in reported studies.

Conclusions

The adapted QUADAS-2 will have broad application for researchers, evidence evaluators, and journals who are interested in designing, conducting, evaluating, and publishing studies for cervical cancer screening and management.

SUBMITTER: Clarke MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7141754 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn January 2003, STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) were published in a number of journals, to improve the quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy studies. We designed a study to investigate the inter-assessment reproducibility, and intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of the items in the STARD statement.MethodsThirty-two diagnostic accuracy studies published in 2000 in medical journals with an impact factor of at least 4 were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of reporting of these studies using the 25 items of the STARD statement. A consensus evaluation was obtained by discussing and resolving disagreements between reviewers. Almost two years later, the same studies were evaluated by the same reviewers. For each item, percentages agreement and Cohen's kappa between first and second consensus assessments (inter-assessment) were calculated. Intraclass Correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to evaluate its reliability.ResultsThe overall inter-assessment agreement for all items of the STARD statement was 85% (Cohen's kappa 0.70) and varied from 63% to 100% for individual items. The largest differences between the two assessments were found for the reporting of the rationale of the reference standard (kappa 0.37), number of included participants that underwent tests (kappa 0.28), distribution of the severity of the disease (kappa 0.23), a cross tabulation of the results of the index test by the results of the reference standard (kappa 0.33) and how indeterminate results, missing data and outliers were handled (kappa 0.25). Within and between reviewers, also large differences were observed for these items. The inter-assessment reliability of the STARD checklist was satisfactory (ICC = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.62 to 0.89]).ConclusionAlthough the overall reproducibility of the quality of reporting on diagnostic accuracy studies using the STARD statement was found to be good, substantial disagreements were found for specific items. These disagreements were not so much caused by differences in interpretation of the items by the reviewers but rather by difficulties in assessing the reporting of these items due to lack of clarity within the articles. Including a flow diagram in all reports on diagnostic accuracy studies would be very helpful in reducing confusion between readers and among reviewers.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to survey obstetrician-gynecologists' cervical cancer screening practices and management of cervical abnormalities to ascertain adherence to guidelines.MethodsFrom January to July 2019, obstetrician-gynecologists at 5 St. Louis area hospitals were surveyed online about cervical cancer screening and management practices through 13 clinical vignettes. Survey scores and the American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) app use were compared using Mann-Whitney tests.ResultsWhen screening 30- to 65-year-old participants, 114 (98%) of the 116 total participants used co-testing, but only 71 (61%) screened at 5-year intervals. None used primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. For 21- to 29-year-old participants, 17 (15%) screened with annual cytology, whereas 14 (12%) used annual or every 3-year co-testing. Forty eight (41%) screened younger than 21 years, regardless of risk factors or only if immunocompromised. Eleven (9%) continued screening after total hysterectomy for benign indications. Only 2 (2%) responded to all clinical vignettes in adherence to guidelines. More than 30% of participants would pursue unnecessary HPV testing and/or loop electrosurgical excision procedure for persistent low-grade cytology. Fifty eight (48%) incorrectly reported hysterectomy as management for adenocarcinoma in situ on biopsy. Participants would undertreat young women with high-grade abnormalities including high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 (48, 41%) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1 (65, 56%). Forty one (35%) reported exiting women from screening prematurely. The median score for participants using the ASCCP app was significantly greater than those who did not (79% vs 71%, p = .002).ConclusionsMidwestern obstetrician-gynecologists' adherence to the guidelines for cervical cancer screening and management of abnormal results is suboptimal. Although co-testing for women aged 30-65 years has been broadly adopted, primary HPV testing has not. Physicians overscreen, overtreat low-grade lesions, and undertreat high-grade lesions in young women.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess and compare the accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), visual inspection with Lugol's iodine (VILI), and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as alternative standalone methods for primary cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.Data sourcesSystematic searches of multiple databases including Medline, Embase, and Scopus for studies published between January 1994 and June 2014.Review methodsInclusion criteria for studies were: alternative methods to cytology used as a standalone test for primary screening; study population not at particular risk of cervical cancer (excluding studies focusing on HIV positive women or women with gynaecological symptoms); women screened by nurses; reference test (colposcopy and directed biopsies) performed at least in women with positive screening results. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data for inclusion, and evaluated study quality using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2) checklist. Primary outcomes were absolute accuracy measures (sensitivity and specificity) of screening tests to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+).Results15 studies of moderate quality were included (n=61,381 for VIA, n=46,435 for VILI, n=11,322 for HPV testing). Prevalence of CIN2+ did not vary by screening test and ranged from 2.3% (95% confidence interval 1.5% to 3.3%) in VILI studies to 4.9% (2.7% to 7.8%) in HPV testing studies. Positivity rates of VILI, VIA, and HPV testing were 16.5% (9.8% to 24.7%), 16.8% (11.0% to 23.6%), and 25.8% (17.4% to 35.3%), respectively. Pooled sensitivity was higher for VILI (95.1%; 90.1% to 97.7%) than VIA (82.4%; 76.3% to 87.3%) in studies where the reference test was performed in all women (P<0.001). Pooled specificity of VILI and VIA were similar (87.2% (78.1% to 92.8%) v 87.4% (77.1% to 93.4%); P=0.85). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were similar for HPV testing versus VIA (both P ≥ 0.23) and versus VILI (both P ≥ 0.16). Accuracy of VIA and VILI increased with sample size and time period.ConclusionsFor primary screening of cervical cancer in sub-Saharan Africa, VILI is a simple and affordable alternative to cytology that demonstrates higher sensitivity than VIA. Implementation studies are needed to assess the effect of these screening strategies on the incidence and outcomes of cervical cancer in the region.