Table 1.
Distribution of diagnoses by reader for 3 readings of glass slides and 2 readings of digitized images among a stratified random sample of 241 cases
| Negative % |
CIN1 % |
CIN2 % |
CIN3/AIS % |
Cancer % |
Marginal homogeneity p-value |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community diagnosis | 9.5 | 20.7 | 23.7 | 31.1 | 14.9 | |||
| Reader 1 | Slide | read 1 | 24.9 | 21.2 | 9.5 | 32.8 | 11.6 | |
| read 2 | 24.9 | 22.0 | 11.6 | 30.3 | 11.2 | |||
| read 3 | 24.1 | 25.3 | 9.1 | 29.9 | 11.6 | 0.1 | ||
| Image | read 1 | 22.8 | 23.2 | 12.9 | 29.5 | 11.6 | ||
| read 2 | 28.6 | 23.2 | 10.0 | 26.6 | 11.6 | 0.002a | ||
| Reader 2 | Slide | read 1 | 22.0 | 17.4 | 25.7 | 23.7 | 11.2 | |
| read 2 | 21.6 | 15.8 | 23.7 | 27.8 | 11.2 | |||
| read 3 | 21.2 | 21.2 | 22.0 | 24.1 | 11.6 | 0.02a | ||
| Image | read 1 | 27.0 | 19.1 | 23.2 | 19.5 | 11.2 | ||
| read 2 | 29.9 | 18.3 | 22.8 | 17.4 | 11.6 | 0.22 | ||
| Reader 3 | Slide | read 1 | 19.5 | 15.4 | 23.7 | 30.3 | 11.2 | |
| read 2 | 19.9 | 17.4 | 17.8 | 32.8 | 12.0 | |||
| read 3 | 20.3 | 16.6 | 15.8 | 35.7 | 11.6 | 0.01a | ||
| Image | read 1 | 22.8 | 17.0 | 19.9 | 28.6 | 11.6 | ||
| read 2 | 21.6 | 16.6 | 13.7 | 36.9 | 11.2 | 0.003a | ||
Excludes 9 cases where slide or image was judged unsatisfactory for at least one reader.
The distribution of diagnoses was significantly different between all readers for both slides and images, p <0.001. Reader 2 showed a significant difference in the distribution of diagnoses between slides and images, p <0.001.
a
Statistically significant at p<.05 threshold.