Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

You searched for:"Bárbara Maria Santos Barboza"

We found (1) results for your search.
  • Artigos Originais

    Why does the prevalence of cytopathological results of cervical cancer screening can vary significantly between two regions of Brazil?

    Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2014;36(5):192-197

    Summary

    Artigos Originais

    Why does the prevalence of cytopathological results of cervical cancer screening can vary significantly between two regions of Brazil?

    Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2014;36(5):192-197

    DOI 10.1590/S0100-7203201400050002

    Views1

    PURPOSE:

    To analyze the prevalence of cervical cytopathological results for the screening of cervical cancer with regard to women's age and time since the last examination in Maceió and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, among those assisted by the Brazilian Unified Health System.

    METHODS:

    Cervical cytopathological results available in the Information System of Cervical Cancer Screening for the year 2011 were analyzed, corresponding to 206,550 for Rio de Janeiro and 45,243 for Maceió.

    RESULTS:

    In Rio de Janeiro, examination at one and two year intervals predominated, while in Maceió examination at one and three year intervals had a higher predominance. Women who underwent cervical smear screening in Maceió were older than those in Rio de Janeiro. The prevalence of invasive squamous cell carcinoma was similar for the two cities, but all the other results presented a higher prevalence in Rio de Janeiro: ASCUS (PR=5.32; 95%CI 4.66-6.07); ASCH (PR=4.27; 95%CI 3.15-5.78); atypical glandular cells (PR=10.02; 95%CI 5.66-17.76); low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (PR=6.10; 95%CI 5.27-7.07); high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (PR=8.90; 95%CI 6.50-12.18) and adenocarcinoma (PR=3.00; 95%CI 1.21-7.44). The rate of unsatisfactory cervical samples was two times higher in Maceió and that of rejected samples for analysis was five times higher in Maceió when compared to Rio de Janeiro.

    CONCLUSIONS:

    The prevalence rates of altered cervical cytopathological results was significantly higher in Rio de Janeiro than in Maceió. There is no objective information that may justify this difference. One hypothesis is that there may be a difference in the diagnostic performance of the cervical cancer screening, which could be related to the quality of the Pap smear. Thus, these findings suggest that it would be necessary to perform this evaluation at national level, with emphasis on the performance of cervical cancer screening in order to improve the effectiveness of cervical cancer control.

    See more
    Why does the prevalence of cytopathological results of cervical cancer screening can vary significantly between two regions of Brazil?

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report -
correction
editorial
editorial -
letter
letter -
other -
rapid-communication
research-article
research-article -
review-article
review-article -
Section
Abstracts of Awarded Papers at the 50th Brazilian Congress of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Case Report
Case Report and Treatment
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Editorial
Editorial
Equipments and Methods
Erratum
Febrasgo Position Statement
Letter to the Editor
Methods and Techniques
Nota do Editor
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Original Articles
Previous Note
Relato de Caso
Relatos de Casos
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Teses
Review Article
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Thesis Abstract
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE