Objective: Evaluation of visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid (VIA ) for screening cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Methods: In this prospective study, 400 women were screened using the Papanicolaou (PAP) smear, VIA and colp oscopy. Those who had positive results with any of the screening methods underwe nt large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ). The sensitivity and s pecificity of each of the screening methods was analyzed. Results: The sensitivi ty of VIA (96.7%) was much higher than that of the Pap smear (50%), and almost as high as that of colposcopy (100%). The specificity of VIA (36.4%) was lowe r than that of the Pap smear (97%) and colposcopy (96.9%), resulting in high f alse-positive rates for VIA. Two cases of endocervical lesions were missed with VIA. Conclusion: Visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid is very sensi tive for ectocervical lesions. The advantages of the VIA method are its low cost and ease of use (it can be used by paramedical workers), its high sensitivity a nd its immediate results (it is possible to “see and treat” at the first visit). Its main limitation is a high rate of false-positive results, which may lead t o overtreatment if a “see and treat”policy is applied. Objective: Evaluation of visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid (VIA) for screening cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Methods: In this prospective study, 400 women were screened using the Papanicolaou (PAP) smear, VIA and colp oscopy. Those who had positive results The sensitivity and s pecificity of each of the screening methods were analyzed. Results: The sensitivi ty of VIA (96.7%) was much higher than that of the specificity of VIA (36.4%) was lowe r than that of the Pap smear (97%) and colposcopy (96.9%), the resulting smear (50%), and almost as high as that of colposcopy in high f alse-positive rates for VIA. Both advantages of the VIA method are its low cost and ease of use (it can be used by param edical workers), its high sensitivity a nd its immediate results (it is possible to “see and treat ” at the first visit). Its main limitation is a high rate of false-positive results, which may lead to overtreatment if a “See and treat” policy is applied.