Table 5.
Association and strength of correlation between histological diagnosis and colposcopic grading in senior and junior group
| Histological Diagnosisb | p value c K Value; 95 % C.I. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specimen | Colposcopic Gradinga | Negative/CIN1 N (%) | CIN2/3 N (%) | |
| Routine analysis after single biopsy (A) | ||||
| total group | TAG1 | 176 (85.9) | 24 (52.2) | <.001 0.32; .16-.47 |
| TAG2 | 29 (14.1) | 22 (47.8) | ||
| senior group | TAG1 | 87 (84.5) | 9 (37.5) | <.001 0.42; .25-.62 |
| TAG2 | 16 (15.5) | 15 (62.5) | ||
| junior group | TAG1 | 89 (87.3) | 15 (68.2) | <.05 0.20; −.01-.40 |
| TAG2 | 13 (12.7) | 7 (31.8) | ||
| Revision analysis after two biopsies (A and B) | ||||
| total group | TAG1 | 164 (86.8) | 36 (58.1) | <.001 0.30; .17-.44 |
| TAG2 | 25 (13.2) | 26 (41.9) | ||
| senior group | TAG1 | 80 (85.1) | 16 (48.5) | <.001 0.37; .15-.54 |
| TAG2 | 14 (14.9) | 17 (51.5) | ||
| junior group | TAG1 | 84 (88.4) | 20 (69.0) | <.05 0.22; .03-.42 |
| TAG2 | 11 (11.6) | 9 (31.0) | ||
aThe histology of the most severe lesion obtained with specimen A or B was recoded as the final histological diagnosis
bTAG1: Atypical Transformation of Grade 1, TAG2: Atypical Transformation Grade 2
cThe significance of the association between colposcopic grading and histological diagnosis was determined within group using χ2 test, the strength of the association was assessed using κ statistics. To perform this analysis the histological diagnosis were dichotomized into two classifications: Negative/Cervicites/Metaplasia/koilocytosis/Condylomatosis/CIN 1 and CIN 2/CIN 3