Systematic Review of International Colposcopy Quality Improvement Guidelines

Edward J. Mayeaux, Akiva P. Novetsky, David Chelmow, Kim Choma, Francisco Garcia, Angela H. Liu, Theognosia Papasozomenos, Mark H. Einstein

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations


Objectives The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Colposcopy Standards Committee organized multiple working groups to draft colposcopy standards for the United States. As part of this project, international quality assurance and improvement measures were examined. Materials and Methods The quality improvement working group performed a systematic review of the literature to collate international guidelines related to quality improvement. Source guidelines were collected using searches in Medline, Google Scholar, the International Federation of Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy Web site, other regional colposcopy group's Web sites, and communications with International Federation of Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy board of directors' members and other expert members of various national groups. Once identified, the sources were reviewed by multiple workgroup members for potential guideline materials. Results Fifty-six unique documents were identified, of which 18 met inclusion criteria and contributed data to the analysis. Information was abstracted and grouped by related subject. Conclusions Wide variation exists in colposcopy guidance and quality indicators from regional and national colposcopy societies. Abstracted international guidelines are presented.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)249-257
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Lower Genital Tract Disease
Issue number4
StatePublished - Oct 1 2017


  • cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
  • colposcopy
  • healthcare quality indicators
  • quality assurance
  • quality improvement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology


Dive into the research topics of 'Systematic Review of International Colposcopy Quality Improvement Guidelines'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this