Silver MI, Andrews J, Cooper CK, Gage JC, Gold MA, Khan MJ, et al Risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse by cytology, human papillomavirus 16/18, and colposcopy impression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132. The authors provided this information as a supplement to their article.
©2018 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Page 1 of 8
Appendix 1. Risk estimates for CIN3+ based on colposcopy impression and cytology result. ES, estimated risk
of CIN3+; I-squared only calculated when number of studies is greater than 3.
Silver MI, Andrews J, Cooper CK, Gage JC, Gold MA, Khan MJ, et al Risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse by cytology, human papillomavirus 16/18, and colposcopy impression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132. The authors provided this information as a supplement to their article.
©2018 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Page 2 of 8
Appendix 2. Risk estimates for CIN3+ based on colposcopy impression and HPV16/18 status. ES, estimated
risk of CIN3+; I-squared only calculated when number of studies is greater than 3.
Silver MI, Andrews J, Cooper CK, Gage JC, Gold MA, Khan MJ, et al Risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse by cytology, human papillomavirus 16/18, and colposcopy impression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132. The authors provided this information as a supplement to their article.
©2018 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Page 3 of 8
Appendix 3. Risk estimates for CIN3+ based on colposcopy impression, cytology result, and HPV16/18
status. ES, estimated risk of CIN3+; I-squared only calculated when number of studies is greater than 3.
Silver MI, Andrews J, Cooper CK, Gage JC, Gold MA, Khan MJ, et al Risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse by cytology, human papillomavirus 16/18, and colposcopy impression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132. The authors provided this information as a supplement to their article.
©2018 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Page 4 of 8
Silver MI, Andrews J, Cooper CK, Gage JC, Gold MA, Khan MJ, et al Risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse by cytology, human papillomavirus 16/18, and colposcopy impression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132. The authors provided this information as a supplement to their article.
©2018 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Page 5 of 8
Appendix 4. Risk estimates for CIN2+ based on colposcopy impression and cytology result. ES, estimated risk
of CIN2+; I-squared only calculated when number of studies is greater than 3.
Silver MI, Andrews J, Cooper CK, Gage JC, Gold MA, Khan MJ, et al Risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse by cytology, human papillomavirus 16/18, and colposcopy impression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132. The authors provided this information as a supplement to their article.
©2018 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Page 6 of 8
Appendix 5. Risk estimates for CIN2+ based on colposcopy impression and HPV16/18 status. ES, estimated
risk of CIN2+; I-squared only calculated when number of studies is greater than 3.
Silver MI, Andrews J, Cooper CK, Gage JC, Gold MA, Khan MJ, et al Risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse by cytology, human papillomavirus 16/18, and colposcopy impression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132. The authors provided this information as a supplement to their article.
©2018 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Page 7 of 8
Appendix 6. Risk estimates for CIN2+ based on colposcopy impression, cytology result, and HPV16/18
status. ES, estimated risk of CIN2+; I-squared only calculated when number of studies is greater than 3.
Silver MI, Andrews J, Cooper CK, Gage JC, Gold MA, Khan MJ, et al Risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse by cytology, human papillomavirus 16/18, and colposcopy impression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132. The authors provided this information as a supplement to their article.
©2018 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Page 8 of 8