Table 1.

Studies of visually based cervical screening test

Reference (year)	Screening methodology	Sensitivity	Specificity	Comments
Basu et al. [25] (2002)	High-threshold positive VI	31.9%	93.3%	This study included more than 6000 Indian women VI was evaluated for its ability to detect CIN 2+, with colposcopically directed biopsy serving as the reference standard HIV serostatus of women screened for cervical cancer was not reported
Sankaranarayanan et al. [26] (2004)	VIA	76.8%	85.5%	This is a meta-analysis of pooled African and Indian studies, including more than 56,000 women
	VILI	91.7%	85.4%
				Screening tests were evaluated for their ability to detect CIN 2+, with colposcopically directed biopsy serving as the reference standard HIV serostatus of women screened for cervical cancer was not reported
Arbyn et al. [35] (2008)	VIA	79.2%	84.7%	This is a meta-analysis update of pooled African and Indian studies, including more than 58,000 women
	VILI	91.2%	84.5%
				Screening tests were evaluated for their ability to detect CIN 2+, with colposcopically directed biopsy serving as the reference standard HIV serostatus of women screened for cervical cancer was not reported
Akinwuntan et al. [28] (2008)	VIA	76.0%	83.0%	205 HIV-infected women were enrolled in this study VIA was evaluated for its ability to detect CIN 2+, with cervical biopsy serving as the reference standard
Sahasrabuddhe et al. [3•] (2011)	VIA	80.0%	82.6%	303 HIV-infected women were enrolled in this Indian study VIA was evaluated for its ability to detect CIN 2+, with colposcopically directed biopsy serving as the reference standard

VI, visual inspection; VIA, visual inspection with acetic acid; VILI, visual inspection with Lugol’s iodine.