Reproducibility of the histological diagnosis of cervical dysplasia among pathologists from 4 continents

International Journal of Gynecological Pathology

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 101-107

  Ceballos, Kathy M ^a,e   Chapman, William ^b   Daya, Dean ^c   Julian, Jim A ^c   Lytwyn, Alice ^c   McLachlin, Catherine M ^d   Elit, Laurie ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^e BRITISH COLUMBIA CANCER AGENCY   (Canada)

Author keywords

; Cervical dysplasia; Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Reliability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BRAZIL; CANADA; CANCER INVASION; COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX DYSPLASIA; CLINICAL TRIAL; FEMALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR;

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; COLPOSCOPY; FEMALE; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 39349085739     PISSN: 02771691     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/pgp.0b013e31814fb1da     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001;285:1500-5.
2. Parker MF, Zahn CM, Vogel KM, et al. Discrepancy in the interpretation of cervical histology by gynecologic pathologists. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:277-80.
3. Klaes R, Benner A, Friedrich T, et al. p16INK4a immunohistochemistry improves interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol 2002;26:1389-99.
4. Ismail SM, Colclough AB, Dinnen JS, et al. Observer variation in histopathological diagnosis and grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br Med J 1989;298:707-10.
5. Genest DR, Stein L, Cibas E, et al. A binary (Bethesda) system for classifying cervical cancer precursors: criteria, reproducibility, and viral correlates. Hum Pathol 1993;24:730-6.
6. McCluggage WG, Bharucha H, Caughley LM, et al. Interobserver variation in the reporting of cervical colposcopic biopsy specimens: comparison of grading systems. J Clin Pathol 1996;49:833-5.
7. Baseman JG, Koutsky LA. The epidemiology of human papillomavirus infections. J Clin Virol 2005;32S:S16-S24.
8. Rigby A. Statistical methods in epidemiology. V. Towards an understanding of the kappa coefficient. Disabil Rehabil 2000;22:339-44.
9. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
10. Fleiss JJ. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 1971;76:378-82.
11. Cicchetti DV, Allison T. A new procedure for assessing reliability of scoring EEG sleep recordings. Am J EEG Technol 1971;11:101-9.
12. Llewellyn H. Observer variation, dysplasia grading and HPV typing: a review. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;114(Suppl):S21-S35.
13. Robertson AJ, Anderson JM, Swanson Beck J, et al. Observer variability in histological reporting of cervical biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol 1989;42:231-8.
14. Malpica A, Matisic JP, Niekerk DV, et al. Kappa statistic to measure interrater and intrarater agreement for 1790 cervical biopsy specimens among twelve pathologists: qualitative histopathologic analysis and methodologic issues. Gynecol Oncol 2005;99(3 Suppl 1):S38-S52.
15. Lytwyn A, Salit I, Raboud J, et al. Interobserver agreement in the interpretation of anal intraepithelial neoplasia. Cancer 2005;103:1447-56.