ReviewCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2001
Pap test results. Responding to Bethesda system reports.
Review in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo review the adequacy and diagnostic categories of the Bethesda system for reporting Pap test results (cervicovaginal cytology) and summarize management options. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: The latest research evidence and guidelines from both international and Canadian sources are reviewed. With a few exceptions, good evidence supports particular management approaches for each adequacy statement and diagnostic category. MAIN MESSAGE: Women with unsatisfactory Pap smears should be re-examined and retested. Women with satisfactory smears and a diagnosis of "within normal limits" (WNL) or "benign cellular changes" (BCC) should be retested only at recommended screening intervals. Women with "satisfactory but limited by..." results and a diagnosis of WNL or BCC should have individualized follow up. Women with diagnoses of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions, atypical glandular cells of uncertain significance, or malignancy should have further investigation (colposcopy). Optimal management of asymptomatic women with normal cervices and reports of atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions is still controversial.
conclusionManagement of women following Pap tests is determined by both the adequacy of the test and diagnoses based on the results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11494930PMC2018540What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.