Of the 2513 women offered 'see and treat' procedure, 1879 (74.8%) accepted.
Patients were excluded from the trial if they withheld consent, if they had initially been treated by the "Test and Treat" procedure or if a baseline endoscopy was not obtained.
In this paper, we describe the acceptability, safety and effectiveness of 'see and treat' procedure involving screening, colposcopy, directed biopsy and double-freeze cryotherapy by trained nurses in a single-visit in field clinics supervised by a doctor.
The board continued to buy Travenol clotting agents through the early 1980's, even when the company failed to implement widely accepted heat-treating procedures.
In the case of see-and-treat procedures, the patients would not have had awareness of the operative nature of the upcoming hysteroscopy at the time anxiety was measured.
Results using intent-to-treat procedures were similar.
Nonetheless, intent-to-treat procedures were used for analyses, which mostly likely resulted in conservative results.
Secondly, we adopted other key assumptions of the prior analysis, including see-and-treat procedures for visual inspection and HPV screening strategies, an assumed sensitivity for CIN2+ for colposcopy, VIA and HPV testing of 100%, 76% and 88%, respectively; and no unsatisfactory visual tests.
For all strategies, we assumed diagnostic confirmation of the screening results would occur prior to any treatment, because after extensive consultation with local decision-makers it was determined that in this setting "see-and-treat" procedures would not currently be clinically acceptable.
We treated procedures as a fixed effects and individual trainees as a random effects, because each year new trainees are enrolled.
