Table 2

Studies published on AV Magnivisualizer

Serial No	Study	Screening	Number	Design	Sensitivity and specificity	Conclusion
1	Parashari et al5	Cervical cancer	403 symptomatic women	Magnivisualizer vs histology	Sensitivity of AV Magnivisualizer to detect low-grade lesions was 57.7% vs 75.3% for cytology Sensitivity for high-grade lesions was comparable with both techniques Specificity of the magnivisualizer was 94.3% vs 99% with cytology	Overall sensitivity and specificity of the magnivisualizer were comparable with the cytology
2	Singh et al3	Cervical cancer	385 symptomatic women	Magnivisualizer vs yellow light of tungsten bulb	Correlation with colposcopy: 0.86 for white light vs 0.53 for yellow light	White light is strongly recommended for screening purposes since it enables to select the correct site of biopsy
3	Singh et al6	Cervical cancer	659 symptomatic women	Magnivisualizer vs colposcope	Sensitivity to detect CIN-II and higher lesions was 88.3% vs 86.7% that of colposcopy Specificity to detect CIN-II and higher lesions: 55.8% vs 90.4% that of colposcopy	Thus, this instrument showed a better sensitivity to detect CIN-II and CIN-III lesions compared with VIA (83% vs 54%) without losing any specificity
4	Aggarwal et al7	Cervical cancer	408 symptomatic women	Magnivisualizer vs colposcope	The sensitivity and specificity of magnivisualizer to detect high-grade lesions were 95% and 78% vs 86% and 79% in the case of a colposcope	AV magnivisualizer can be a useful alternative when colposcopy is not available because of its higher sensitivity rate and equivalent specificity for detecting high-grade CIN

CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; VIA, visual inspection with acetic acid.