4.6 Article

Adherence to guidelines for follow-up of low-grade cytologic abnormalities among medically underserved women

Journal

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 105, Issue 6, Pages 1323-1328

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000159549.56601.75

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether women in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) who had findings on a Papanicolaou (Pap) test of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) were followed up in accordance with the interim guidelines for management of abnormal cervical cytology METHODS: For this study period, the guidelines for a Pap result of ASC-US or LSIL specified follow-up by Pap tests repeated every 4 to 6 months for 2 years. If a second report of ASC-US or LSIL was made, the patient was to have colposcopy. We analyzed data from 10,004 women who had a result of ASC-US or LSIL followed by a second ASC-US or LSIL from 1991-2000 RESULTS: As judged by die guidelines, 44% of women who had 2 low-grade abnormalities were followed up appropriately with colposcopy. Among women with 2 ASC-US results, those aged less than 30 years were more likely to receive colposcopy than the other age groups, while women who were aged 60 years and older were more likely to be followed up with a third Pap test. For each of the 4 result groups, American Indian or Alaska Native women had the highest percentages of a third Pap test, whereas Black or African-American women had a higher percentage of no follow-up CONCLUSION: More than one half of the women studied were not followed up in accordance with the established guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cytology. Factors such as age and race or ethnicity influence whether women with cytologic abnormalities receive appropriate follow-up. (c) 2005 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available