Accuracy of colposcopy-directed punch biopsies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Article first published online: 13 AUG 2012
© 2012 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2012 RCOG
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Volume 119, Issue 11, pages 1293–1301, October 2012
How to Cite
Underwood, M., Arbyn, M., Parry-Smith, W., De Bellis-Ayres, S., Todd, R., Redman, C. and Moss, E. (2012), Accuracy of colposcopy-directed punch biopsies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 119: 1293–1301. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03444.x
- Issue published online: 14 SEP 2012
- Article first published online: 13 AUG 2012
- Accepted 3 June 2012. Published Online 13 August 2012.
Appendix S1. Number of true and false, positive and negative punch biopsy results and sensitivity and specificity of punch biopsies defined at cut-off cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1+ for an outcome of CIN2+ (A); at cut-off CIN1+ for an outcome of CIN3+ (B); at cut-off CIN2+ for an outcome of CIN2+ (C); and at cut-off CIN2+ for an outcome of CIN3+ (D).
Figure S1. Diagram of the PRISMA flow chart demonstrating studies included and excluded from the systematic review.
Table S1. Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis.
|BJO_3444_sm_AppendixS1.xls||38K||Supporting info item|
|BJO_3444_sm_FigS1.pdf||36K||Supporting info item|
|BJO_3444_sm_TableS1.pdf||68K||Supporting info item|
Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.