Mostrar el registro sencillo del documento

dc.rights.licenseReconocimiento 4.0 Internacional
dc.contributor.advisorAmaya-Guio, Jairo
dc.contributor.advisorGrillo-Ardila, Carlos Fernando
dc.contributor.authorMoreno Colmenares, Leidy Bibiana
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez Chavarría, María Angélica
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-15T23:59:14Z
dc.date.available2021-12-15T23:59:14Z
dc.date.issued2021-12-15
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/80789
dc.descriptionilustraciones, graficas
dc.description.abstractObjetivo: Realizar una revisión sistemática de la efectividad y la seguridad de las diferentes estrategias de tamización para la detección de lesiones preneoplásicas de cérvix en mujeres mayores de 18 años que se encuentran en riesgo de presentar una lesión precursora de cáncer de cérvix. Métodos: Se incluyeron ensayos clínicos controlados y revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura con metaanálisis que evaluaban las diferentes estrategias de tamización de lesiones preneoplásicas de cérvix. Se realizaron búsquedas en MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CENTRAL y LILACS. Dos revisores evaluaron de forma independiente los ensayos para su inclusión, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo. Se resolvieron los desacuerdos por consenso. Se utilizo el enfoque GRADE para evaluar la calidad de la evidencia. Resultados: Se realizo la búsqueda de la literatura disponible hasta el 08 de marzo del 2020. Se recuperaron 898 revisiones sistemáticas, de las cuales 882 fueron tamizadas posterior a la eliminación de duplicados, 36 fueron analizadas completamente, finalmente 6 cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión. En cuanto a los ensayos clínicos controlados se recuperaron 3883 estudios, después de remover duplicados 3612 referencias fueron tamizadas, 184 textos completos fueron analizados y finalmente 6 cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión. Conclusión: Basados en la revisión de la literatura se concluye que la estrategia de tamización con prueba ADN-VPH y triage con citología es la más segura y efectiva para la detección de lesiones precursoras de cáncer de cérvix. Además, se plantean como alternativas la citología cérvico virginal y la estrategia VIA VILI. Estas estrategias han mostrado impacto positivo en la disminución de la incidencia de lesiones de alto grado definido como NIC 2+, carcinoma invasor y mortalidad por cáncer de cérvix. (Texto tomado de la fuente)
dc.description.abstractObjective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the different screening strategies for the detection of preneoplastic lesions of the cervix in women over 18 years of age who are at risk of presenting a precursor lesion of cervical cancer. Methods: Controlled clinical trials and systematic reviews of the literature with metaanalyzes evaluating the different screening strategies for preneoplastic cervical lesions were included. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CENTRAL and LILACS were searched. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Results: The literature available until March 8, 2020 was searched. 898 systematic reviews were retrieved, of which 882 were screened after elimination of duplicates, 36 were fully analyzed, and finally 6 met the inclusion criteria . Regarding the controlled clinical trials, 3883 studies were retrieved, after removing duplicates, 3612 references were screened, 184 full texts were analyzed and finally 6 met the inclusion criteria. Conclusion: Based on the review of the literature, it is concluded that the DNA-HPV test is the safest and most effective screening strategy for the detection of precursor lesions of cervical cancer, in addition, virginal cervical cytology is proposed as alternative strategies in sites where is not accessible and the VIA VILI strategy in remote places or places with difficult access to health services, all these strategies have a positive impact at the level of reducing the Incidence of high-grade lesions defined as CIN 2+, Incidence of invasive carcinoma and mortality from cervical cancer.
dc.format.extent77 pagínas
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isospa
dc.publisherUniversidad Nacional de Colombia
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject.ddc610 - Medicina y salud
dc.titleSeguridad y efectividad de las diferentes estrategias de tamización para la detección de lesiones preneoplásicas de cérvix
dc.typeTrabajo de grado - Especialidad Médica
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.publisher.programBogotá - Medicina - Especialidad en Obstetricia y Ginecología
dc.description.degreelevelEspecialidades Médicas
dc.description.degreenameEspecialista en Obstetricia y Ginecología
dc.identifier.instnameUniversidad Nacional de Colombia
dc.identifier.reponameRepositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional de Colombia
dc.identifier.repourlhttps://repositorio.unal.edu.co/
dc.publisher.departmentDepartamento de Obstetricia y Ginecología
dc.publisher.facultyFacultad de Medicina
dc.publisher.placeBogotá, Colombia
dc.publisher.branchUniversidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Bogotá
dc.relation.references1. Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, de Sanjosé S, Saraiya M, Ferlay J, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. The Lancet Global Health. 2020 Feb;8(2):e191–203.
dc.relation.references2. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Parkin DM, Piñeros M, Znaor A, et al. Cancer statistics for the year 2020: An overview. International Journal of Cancer. 2021 Aug 15;149(4):778–89.
dc.relation.references3. Sawaya GF, Smith-McCune K, Kuppermann M. Cervical Cancer Screening. JAMA. 2019 May 28;321(20):2018.
dc.relation.references4. de Sanjosé S, Brotons M, Pavón MA. The natural history of human papillomavirus infection. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2018 Feb;47:2–13.
dc.relation.references6. Colombia. Ministerio de la Protección Social., Carrasquilla Gutiérrez Gabriel, Colciencias., Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá. Centro de Estudios e Investigación en Salud., Universidad de Harvard. Escuela de Salud Pública. Guía metodológica para la elaboración de guías de atención integral : en el sistema general de seguridad social en salud colombiano. Colciencias; 2010.
dc.relation.references7. Julian P. T. Higgins (Editor) JT (Editor), JC (Associate EMC (Associate ETL (Associate EMJP (Associate EVAW (Associate E. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd Edition.
dc.relation.references8. Directriz para el fortalecimiento de los programas nacionales de guías informadas por la evidencia. Una herramienta para la adaptación e implementación de guías en las Américas. Directriz para el fortalecimiento de los programas nacionales de guías informadas por la evidencia Una herramienta para la adaptación e implementación de guías en las Américas. 2018;
dc.relation.references9. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ [Internet]. 2017 Sep 21 [cited 2021 Dec 14];358:4008. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j4008
dc.relation.references10. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ [Internet]. 2019 Aug 28 [cited 2021 Dec 14];366. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l4898
dc.relation.references11. GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. McMaster University, 2020 (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). Available from gradepro.org.
dc.relation.references12. Broek JL, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, Lang D, Jaeschke R, Williams JW, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions. Allergy [Internet]. 2009 May [cited 2021 Dec 14];64(5):669–77. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19210357/
dc.relation.references13. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (Clinical research ed) [Internet]. 2008 Apr 26 [cited 2021 Dec 14];336(7650):924–6. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18436948/
dc.relation.references14. Denny L, Kuhn L, de Souza M, Pollack AE, Dupree W, Wright TC. Screen-and-treat approaches for cervical cancer prevention in low-resource settings: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA [Internet]. 2005 Nov 2 [cited 2021 Dec 14];294(17):2173–81. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16264158/
dc.relation.references15. Sankaranarayanan R, Esmy PO, Rajkumar R, Muwonge R, Swaminathan R, Shanthakumari S, et al. Effect of visual screening on cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Tamil Nadu, India: a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet (London, England) [Internet]. 2007 Aug 4 [cited 2021 Dec 14];370(9585):398–406. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17679017/
dc.relation.references16. Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Shastri SS, Jayant K, Muwonge R, Budukh AM, et al. HPV Screening for Cervical Cancer in Rural India. New England Journal of Medicine [Internet]. 2009 Apr 2 [cited 2021 Dec 14];360(14):1385–94. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19339719/
dc.relation.references17. Shastri SS, Mittra I, Mishra GA, Gupta S, Dikshit R, Singh S, et al. Effect of VIA screening by primary health workers: randomized controlled study in Mumbai, India. Journal of the National Cancer Institute [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2021 Dec 14];106(3). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24563518/
dc.relation.references18. Meggiolaro A, Unim B, Semyonov L, Miccoli S, Maffongelli E, la Torre G. The role of Pap test screening against cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinica Terapeutica. 2016;167(4):124–39.
dc.relation.references19. Peirson L, Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Ciliska D, Warren R. Screening for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic reviews [Internet]. 2013 May 24 [cited 2021 Dec 14];2(1). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23706117/
dc.relation.references20. Murphy J, Kennedy EB, Dunn S, McLachlin CM, Kee Fung MF, Gzik D, et al. HPV testing in primary cervical screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d’obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2021 Dec 14];34(5):443–52. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22555137/
dc.relation.references21. Arbyn M, Smith SB, Temin S, Sultana F, Castle P. Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses. BMJ [Internet]. 2018 Dec 5 [cited 2021 Dec 14];363:4823. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4823
dc.relation.references22. Ogilvie GS, van Niekerk D, Krajden M, Smith LW, Cook D, Gondara L, et al. Effect of Screening With Primary Cervical HPV Testing vs Cytology Testing on High-grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia at 48 Months: The HPV FOCAL Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA [Internet]. 2018 Jul 3 [cited 2021 Dec 14];320(1):43–52. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29971397/
dc.relation.references23. Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri: 2021 update. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics [Internet]. 2021 Oct 1 [cited 2021 Dec 14];155(S1):28–44. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijgo.138
dc.relation.references5. Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. Guía de Práctica Clínica para la detección y manejo de lesiones precancerosas de cuello uterino. Guía para pacientes y cuidadores. Colombia 2014.
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject.proposalNeoplasia intraepitelial cervical
dc.subject.proposaltamización masiva
dc.subject.proposalprueba de Papanicolaou
dc.subject.proposalpruebas de ADN del virus del papiloma humano
dc.subject.proposalCervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia
dc.subject.proposalUterine Cervical Neoplasms
dc.subject.proposalMass Screening
dc.subject.proposalPapanicolaou Test
dc.subject.proposalHuman Papillomavirus DNA Test
dc.title.translatedSafety and effectiveness of the different screening strategies for the detection of preneoplastic lesions of the cervix
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_bdcc
dc.type.coarversionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_ab4af688f83e57aa
dc.type.contentText
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/TM
oaire.accessrightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dcterms.audience.professionaldevelopmentEstudiantes
dcterms.audience.professionaldevelopmentInvestigadores
dcterms.audience.professionaldevelopmentPúblico general
dcterms.audience.professionaldevelopmentResponsables políticos


Archivos en el documento

Thumbnail

Este documento aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del documento

Reconocimiento 4.0 InternacionalEsta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0.Este documento ha sido depositado por parte de el(los) autor(es) bajo la siguiente constancia de depósito