Table 3 Accuracy of the conization procedure for predicting the final RH pathological diagnosis in the margin-invaded subgroup.

Parameter	Model	Sensitivity (%) (95% CI^a)	P value^b	NPV^c (%) (95% CI^a)	P value^b	FNR ^d (%) (95% CI^a)	P value^b
Tumor width	A^e	50.0 (36.9–63.1)	<0.001	78.0 (70.7–85.2)	<0.001	22 (15.2–30.3)	<0.001
Tumor width	B^f	98.2 (90.5–99.9)	<0.001	95.2 (76.2–99.9)	<0.001	4.8 (0–13.9)	<0.001
Depth of stromal invasion	A^e	66.1 (53.0–77.3)	<0.001	81.6 (73.2–88.2)	<0.001	18.4 (11.8–26.8)	<0.001
Depth of stromal invasion	B^f	98.4 (95.2–100)	<0.001	95.8 (87.8–100)	<0.001	4.2 (0–12.2)	<0.001
LVSI	A^e	70.5 (54.8–83.2)	<0.001	89.5 (82.7–94.3)	<0.001	10.5 (5.7–17.3)	<0.001
LVSI	B^f	100 (92.0–87.9)	<0.001	100 (83.9–100)	<0.001	0 (0–16)	<0.001

^aCredibility interval; ^bMcNemar chi-square test; ^cNegative predictive value; ^dFalse negative rate; ^eSimple prediction model; ^fCombined prediction model (RH pathological parameters were predicted with the corresponding conization variables combined with the endocervical and deep resection margin statuses of conization.).

Quick links

Search