METAANALYSIS OF PAP TEST ACCURACY

被引:457
作者
FAHEY, MT [1 ]
IRWIG, L [1 ]
MACASKILL, P [1 ]
机构
[1] UNIV SYDNEY, DEPT PUBL HLTH, SYDNEY, NSW 2006, AUSTRALIA
关键词
CERVIX NEOPLASMS; CYTOLOGY; EVALUATION STUDIES; METAANALYSIS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; (EPIDEMIOLOGY); VAGINAL SMEARS;
D O I
10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117485
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
A literature search identified 62 studies published by August 1992 comparing Papanicolaou (Pap) test results with histology. Critical appraisal revealed that 82% of these had potential for verification bias and that only 37% stated that cytology and histology were independently assessed. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity ranged from 11 to 99% and 14 to 97%, respectively, and were highly negatively correlated (r = -0.63). Meta-analysis was used to combine data from 59 studies to estimate the accuracy of the Pap test using a summary receiver operating characteristic curve and to examine the effect of study quality. The summary receiver operating characteristic curve suggests that the Pap test may be unable to achieve concurrently high sensitivity and specificity. For example, specificity in the 90-95% range corresponds to sensitivity in the 20-35% range. Pap test accuracy was not associated with reported study characteristics or dimensions of quality. Future primary studies should pay more attention to methodologic standards for the conduct and reporting of diagnostic test evaluations.
引用
收藏
页码:680 / 689
页数:10
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [21] Mulrow C.D., Linn W.D., Gaul M.K., Et al., Assessing quality of a diagnostic test evaluation, J Gen Intern Med, 4, pp. 288-294, (1989)
  • [22] The “Methods for Prognosis and Decision Making” Working Group. Memorandum for the evaluation of diagnostic measures, J Clin Chem Clin Biochem, 28, pp. 873-879, (1990)
  • [23] Beam C.A., Sostman H.D., Zhfeng J.Y., Status of clinical MR evaluations, 1985-1988: Baseline and design for further assessments, Radiology, 180, pp. 265-269, (1991)
  • [24] The 1988 Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses, JAMA, 262, pp. 931-934, (1989)
  • [25] Robertson A.J., Histopathological grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN): Is there a need for a change?, J Pathol, 159, pp. 273-275, (1989)
  • [26] Snedecor G.W., Statistical Methods, (1980)
  • [27] Sheps S.B., Schechter M.T., The assessment of diagnostic tests, JAMA, 252, pp. 2418-2422, (1984)
  • [28] Arroll B., Schechter M.T., Sheps S.B., The assessment of diagnostic tests: A comparison of the recent medical literature-1982 versus 1985, J Gen Intern Med, 3, pp. 443-447, (1988)
  • [29] Fletcher R.H., Carcinoembryonic antigen, Ann Intern Med, 104, pp. 66-73, (1986)
  • [30] Cervical Screening in Australia: Options for Change, (1991)