To answer your comments, Brat :
1. unfortunately I do not have enough data points with VIA / acetic acid to confirm the findings of the study. I only go to Central America a few weeks per year and I guess thousands of patients' results are needed for large scale, reliable results;
2. I totally agree that VIA is way better than nothing. That's why I provide these services in other countries. I would love to be able to do it here too for undocumented / uninsured patients who are too afraid to go to clinics but it's not possible (yet).
3. when pre-cancerous lesions are seen, I always refer for follow up. However, many women who live in those remote places I go to don't even have a car; therefore going to the big city for cryotherapy / biopsy / colposcopy etc. is a real challenge for them. However, a few women will take a bus and go for follow ups. In some cases, I have given cash for them to get on a bus and go.
I am sorry to say that a minority of women only will follow my recommendations and get the money for follow ups. Many women will ignore the test results when positive, but at least they know.
Originally Posted by Brat
I think it is fascinating and would love to see data comparing the vinegar test using an experienced evaluator to the PAP. Even if it is less reliable than a PAP it is better than nothing. What concerns me is what happens when probable cancer is identified, can the patient afford treatment.