AI Article Synopsis

  • Recent research explored the use of smartphones for detecting cervical lesions in patients with abnormal cytology, but data on their effectiveness in gynecologic oncology is limited.
  • In a study of 75 women, two doctors used smartphones and traditional colposcopy to examine the cervix, capturing images and performing biopsies to compare diagnostic effectiveness.
  • The results showed a promising level of agreement between smartphone and colposcopic findings (kappa value of 0.67), with high sensitivity for identifying serious lesions, though specificity was lower, indicating that while smartphones are useful, they may not always be reliable for accurate diagnosis.

Article Abstract

Background: Smartphones recently have been applied in the medical setting. However, the literature evaluating the utility of smartphones in gynecologic oncology is limited.

Objective: To evaluate the utility of a smartphone in the detection of uterine cervical lesions in patients with abnormal cervical cytology.

Study Design: Seventy-five women with abnormal cervical cytology were enrolled. Two doctors independently inspected the uterine cervix by using smartphone or colposcopy. Images were captured using acetic acid, and biopsies were taken as standard-of-care procedures. The diagnostic performance of the smartphone for cervical intraepithelial neoplasm 1 or worse and cervical intraepithelial neoplasm 2 or worse were evaluated, and the kappa value was calculated to determine the chance corrected agreement of the histologic diagnoses based on the smartphone and colposcopic findings.

Results: There was a substantial agreement between histologic diagnoses based on the smartphone and colposcopic findings, with a kappa value of 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the smartphone in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasm 1 or worse were 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.96), 0.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.70), 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.97), and 0.30 (95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.65), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasm 2 or worse were 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.98), 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.45), 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.81), and 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.88), respectively.

Conclusion: We found that there was a substantial agreement between the histologic diagnoses based on the smartphone and colposcopic findings. The smartphone seems to be useful and may be an alternative to colposcopy.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.04.039DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

95% confidence
36
confidence interval
36
cervical intraepithelial
16
intraepithelial neoplasm
16
neoplasm worse
16
abnormal cervical
12
agreement histologic
12
histologic diagnoses
12
diagnoses based
12
based smartphone
12

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!