Journal of SAFOMS

Register      Login

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2018 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Evaluation of Predictive Value of Swede Score

Deepthi Ravindranath, Sivasundari, Onimi Syamala

Keywords : Cin, Colposcopy, Swede score

Citation Information : Ravindranath D, S, Syamala O. Evaluation of Predictive Value of Swede Score. J South Asian Feder Menopause Soc 2018; 6 (2):103-105.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10032-1149

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Objective: The predictive value of colposcopy is not as reliable as it was presumed. The Reid colposcopic index is a prevalently used scoring system which was devised to standardize the colposcopic assessment and to predict the histology. The Swede score formulated by Strander et al. in 2005 is a simple scoring system which includes five variables also including the size of the lesion. This study aims to validate the accuracy of the Swede score in the prediction of high-grade lesions (CIN-II or higher). Methods: The evaluation was carried out in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Sri Ramachandra Medical College between January 2015 and July 2015. Seventy-nine patients who attended the gynecology outpatient department who underwent colposcopy and guided biopsy were included. The participating colposcopists were well trained. Swede score was calculated for each patient after colposcopy and noted. It was then evaluated with the final histopathology after either colposcopic biopsy or excisional cervical biopsy. Since it was not a research study and it was an evaluation, the management of patients was not influenced by the Swede score. Results: Whenever the final diagnosis of cervical lesions was CIN-II or higher, our study showed that the Swede score had 71% sensitivity, 95% specificity, 77% positive predictive value and 94% negative predictive value. Conclusion: The specificity for a score of 8 or more was 95%, therefore higher scores within the system may more accurately predict high-grade lesions. Swede score is a valid simplified scoring system in accurately predicting high-grade lesions.


PDF Share
  1. Etherington I, Luesley D, et al. Observer variability among colposcopists from the West Midlands region. BJOG: An International Jour-nal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1997;104(12):1380-1384.
  2. Jeronimo J, Schiffman M. Colposcopy at a crossroads. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2006;195(2):349-353.
  3. Strander B, Ellstrom-Andersson A, et al. The performance of a new scoring system for colposcopy in detecting high-grade dysplasia in the uterine cervix. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2005;84(10):1013-1017.
  4. Reid R, Scalzi P. Genital warts and cervical cancer. American J Obstetr Gynecol 1985;153(6):611-618.
  5. Bowring J, Strander B, et al. The Swede Score. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Dis-ease. 2010;14(4):301-305.
  6. Pretorius R, Zhang W, et al. Colposcopically directed biopsy, random cervical biopsy, and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II or worse. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2004;191(2):430-434.
  7. Gage J, Hanson V, et al. Number of Cervical Biopsies and Sensitivity of Colposcopy. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2006;108(2):264-272.
  8. Sharp L, Cotton S, et al. After-effects reported by women following colposcopy, cervical biopsies and LLETZ: results from the TOMBOLA trial. BJOG. 2009;116(11):1506-1514.
  9. Massad L, Jeronimo J, et al. Interobserver Agreement in the Assessment of Components of Colposcopic Grading. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2008;111(6):1279-1284.
  10. Walker P. International terminology of colposcopy: an updated report from the international federation for cervical pathology and colposcopy. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2003;101(1):175-177.
  11. Bornstein J, Bentley J, et al. 2011 Colposcopic Terminology of the International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2012;120(1):166-172.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.