Cited by 1,087Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchReliability and Agreement in MeasurementClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Interobserver Reproducibility of Cervical Cytologic and Histologic Interpretations<SUBTITLE>Realistic Estimates From the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study</SUBTITLE>

Stoler, Mark H.·2001·JAMA

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

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.285.11.1500

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stoler, M. H.
Affiliations
University of Virginia Health System (US)
Corresponding author
Stoler, Mark H.
Venue
JAMA
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