Use of mobile phone technology to improve the quality of point-of-care testing in a low-resource setting

AIDS ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilesh V. Jani ◽  
Jorge I. Quevedo ◽  
Ocean Tobaiwa ◽  
Timothy Bollinger ◽  
Nadia E. Sitoe ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 08 (04) ◽  
pp. 218-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prabhakaran Nair Rema ◽  
Aleyamma Mathew ◽  
Shaji Thomas

Abstract Introduction: Colposcopy is a tool to evaluate women with cervical pre-cancer and cancer. To interpret the colposcopic findings, various scoring systems are used but with inter observer variations. To improve the quality of colposcopy, International Federation of Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy (IFCPC) has introduced a colposcopic nomenclature in 2011. Colposcopic scoring helps to select patients who need treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Aim of the Study: The study aimed to evaluate the agreement between colposcopic diagnosis with the modified IFCPC terminology and cervical pathology in patients with abnormal screening tests and to assess the utility of this colposcopic scoring system in low resource settings. Methodology: Patients with abnormal screening tests who underwent colposcopic assessment in the department of Gynaecological oncology were included in the study. Colposcopic scoring was done by the modified IFCPC nomenclature. The results were compared with cytology and the final histopathology. Results: 56 patients were included in the study. The colposcopic scoring when compared to histopathology showed agreement in 65.7% which indicated the agreement was substantial and was statistically significant (P = 0.0001). With cytology the colposcopic score showed agreement in 35.6% indicating a fair agreement and this was also statistically significant (P = 0.001). Conclusion: Colposcopic scoring by modified IFCPC 2011 criteria showed substantial agreement with cervical histopathology. Compared to traditional methods, 2011 international terminology of colposcopy could improve colposcopic accuracy.


Author(s):  
Ida Marie Hoel ◽  
Melissa Davidsen Jørstad ◽  
Morten Ruhwald ◽  
Tehmina Mustafa ◽  
Anne Ma Dyrhol-Riise

2013 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
D S Hurly ◽  
M Buhrer-Skinner ◽  
S G Badman ◽  
S Bulu ◽  
S N Tabrizi ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marika Toscano ◽  
Kam Szlachetka ◽  
Natalie Whaley ◽  
Loralei L. Thornburg

Abstract Background Point-of-care ultrasound (POC-US) is a diagnostic test conducted at the site of patient care with direct interpretation by the clinician, providing immediate results. POC-US for gynecologic application is not well characterized by current literature yet has the potential to increase access in limited resource settings. We compared the diagnostics of three POC-US devices for gynecologic (GYN) pathology and then performed evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of a single best POC-US device for intended use in a low resource setting. Methods This is prospective, pilot descriptive study of 60 subjects. In part 1, comparison of three POC-US devices was performed. Twenty subjects underwent POC-US with three test units [GE Vscan (Vscan), Sonosite Iviz (Iviz), Philips Lumify (Lumify)] followed by diagnostic ultrasound (Dx-US) for reference imaging. Image quality and correlation for devices was scored by blinded reviewers and quantitative measurements of GYN pathology were compared. In part 2, forty subjects underwent POC-US validation with the highest scoring device (Lumify) and Dx-US for reference imaging. Concordance of POC-US operator-interpreted diagnosis with reference imaging interpretation were assessed by Cohen’s unweighted kappa coefficient. Accuracy and agreement of POC-US were assessed by linear regression and Bland–Altman plot analysis. Sensitivity and specificity of POC-US for gynecologic pathologies were calculated. Results In aggregate qualitative measurements, Lumify and Iviz units performed superiorly to Vscan. There was no statistically significant difference in quantitative measurements between devices, but a trend towards lower mean error was seen for Lumify and Iviz as compared to Vscan. Lumify device had highest overall scoring and was selected for further testing. In validation comparison of Lumify to Dx-US, no statistically significant differences were found for measurements of endometrium, uterus, ovaries, adnexal pathology, or leiomyomata, (P < 0.02) with excellent agreement in operator-interpreted diagnosis (Kappa > 0.7). Sensitivity and specificity of detecting pathology was 80–100% with PPV and NPV 76–100%. Conclusion Among three POC-US devices, Lumify and Iviz devices show highest potential for successful application to clinical gynecologic ultrasound. Clinician-performed POC-US has high diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for basic GYN anatomy and pathology. POC-US is an acceptable and feasible diagnostic tool with potential for future application in a low resource setting to increase access to ultrasound.


Midwifery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 75 ◽  
pp. 33-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florence Mgawadere ◽  
Helen Smith ◽  
Atnafu Asfaw ◽  
Jaki Lambert ◽  
Nynke van den Broek

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document