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.
Quote:
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.
|