Interobserver Reproducibility of Cervical Cytologic and Histologic Interpretations<SUBTITLE>Realistic Estimates From the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study</SUBTITLE>
Abstract
Context Despite a critical presumption of reliability, standards of interpathologist agreement have not been well defined for interpretation of cervical pathology specimens. Objective To determine the reproducibility of cytologic, colposcopic histologic, and loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) histologic cervical specimen interpretations among multiple well-trained observers. Design and setting The Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance-Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion (ASCUS-LSIL) Triage Study (ALTS), an ongoing US multicenter clinical trial. Subjects From women enrolled in ALTS during 1996-1998, 4948 monolayer cytologic slides, 2237 colposcopic biopsies, and 535 LEEP specimens were interpreted by 7 clinical center and 4 Pathology Quality Control Group (QC) pathologists. Main outcome measures kappa Values calculated for comparison of the original clinical center interpretation and the first QC reviewer's masked interpretation of specimens. Results For all 3 specimen types, the clinical center pathologists rendered significantly more severe interpretations than did reviewing QC pathologists. The reproducibility of monolayer cytologic interpretations was moderate (kappa = 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.48) and equivalent to the reproducibility of punch biopsy histopathologic interpretations (kappa = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.43-0.49) and LEEP histopathologic interpretations (kappa = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.44-0.55). The lack of reproducibility of hi…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Cytology-based screening is labor- and time-intensive and lacks sensitivity and reproducibility to detect CIN or cervical cancer.
“Cytology‐based screening is labor‐ and time‐intensive and lacks sensitivity and reproducibility to detect CIN or cervical cancer. 4 , 5”
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148 · see citing works
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646 · see citing works
High agreement but low Kappa: I. the problems of two paradoxes
Feinstein, A. R., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1990) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-l · Cited by 3,034 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Practice Bulletin No. 183: postpartum hemorrhage
(2017) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002351 · Cited by 1,406 · see citing works
Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population
Koliopoulos, G., Nyaga, V. N., Santesso, N., Bryant, A., Martin-Hirsch, P. P., Mustafa, R. A., Schünemann, H., Paraskevaidis, E., & Arbyn, M. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008587.pub2 · Cited by 494 · see citing works
Chapter 13: Primary Screening of Cervical Cancer With Human Papillomavirus Tests
Franco, E. L. (2003) · JNCI Monographs · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a003488 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Machalek, D. A., Grulich, A. E., Jin, F., Templeton, D. J., & Poynten, I. M. (2012) · Sexual Health · doi:10.1071/sh12043 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Mishra, G. A., Pimple, S. A., Anand, K. V., Kulkarni, V. Y., Patil, A. S., & Biswas, S. K. (2025) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.35222 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stoler, M. H.
- Affiliations
- University of Virginia Health System (US)
- Corresponding author
- Stoler, Mark H.
- ORCID
- Stoler, Mark H.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2001-03-21
- Volume
- 285
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1500
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W1988558796
- Cited by
- 1,087
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 60
- FWCI
- 37.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (n01cn055155-007, n01cn055105-001, n01cn055157-000, n01cn055159-002, n01cn055156-001, n01cn055153-000, n01cn055154-008)
- National Cancer Institute (CN55156, CN-55105, CN15518, CN-55157, CN-55153, CN 55155, CN 55154, CN 55159)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Keywords
- interobserver reproducibility, cervical cytology, colposcopic biopsy, loop electrosurgical excision procedure, histopathologic interpretation, kappa statistic
- MeSH terms
- Biopsy, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cervix Uteri, Clinical Trials as Topic, Colposcopy, Cytodiagnosis, Electrosurgery, Female, Humans, Pathology, Clinical, Quality Control, United States, Vaginal Smears, Reproducibility of Results, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Observer Variation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review