Skip to main content

Table 5 Association and strength of correlation between histological diagnosis and colposcopic grading in senior and junior group

From: A prospective randomized study on limits of colposcopy and histology: the skill of colposcopist and colposcopy-guided biopsy in diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial lesions

  

Histological Diagnosisb

 

p value c K Value; 95 % C.I.

Specimen

Colposcopic Gradinga

Negative/CIN1 N (%)

CIN2/3 N (%)

 

Routine analysis after single biopsy (A)

 total group

TAG1

176 (85.9)

24 (52.2)

<.001 0.32; .16-.47

 

TAG2

29 (14.1)

22 (47.8)

 senior group

TAG1

87 (84.5)

9 (37.5)

<.001 0.42; .25-.62

 

TAG2

16 (15.5)

15 (62.5)

 junior group

TAG1

89 (87.3)

15 (68.2)

<.05 0.20; −.01-.40

 

TAG2

13 (12.7)

7 (31.8)

Revision analysis after two biopsies (A and B)

 total group

TAG1

164 (86.8)

36 (58.1)

<.001 0.30; .17-.44

 

TAG2

25 (13.2)

26 (41.9)

 senior group

TAG1

80 (85.1)

16 (48.5)

<.001 0.37; .15-.54

 

TAG2

14 (14.9)

17 (51.5)

 junior group

TAG1

84 (88.4)

20 (69.0)

<.05 0.22; .03-.42

 

TAG2

11 (11.6)

9 (31.0)

  1. aThe histology of the most severe lesion obtained with specimen A or B was recoded as the final histological diagnosis
  2. bTAG1: Atypical Transformation of Grade 1, TAG2: Atypical Transformation Grade 2
  3. cThe significance of the association between colposcopic grading and histological diagnosis was determined within group using χ2 test, the strength of the association was assessed using κ statistics. To perform this analysis the histological diagnosis were dichotomized into two classifications: Negative/Cervicites/Metaplasia/koilocytosis/Condylomatosis/CIN 1 and CIN 2/CIN 3