Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11495553›Full record

Trial reportInfectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology2001

Molecular diagnosis of human papillomavirus: comparison between cervical and vaginal sampling.

R R Finan, N Irani-Hakime, H Tamim, W Y Almawi

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Infectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

R R FinanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Georges-Orthodox Hospital, Beirut, Lebanon.
N Irani-Hakime
H Tamim
W Y Almawi
Saint George Hospital · LBAmerican University of Beirut · LBArabian Gulf University · BH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) is the most significant cause of cervical cancer. In view of the number of drawbacks associated with endocervical sampling, the gold standard for HPV detection, this study examined the utility and specificity of vaginal sampling as an alternative for endocervical sampling for the routine detection of HPV. CASE STUDY: The study comprised 51 women who tested positive and 54 women who tested negative for endocervical HPV by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), confirmed by histopathology. At the time of specimen collection, both (speculum-assisted) endocervical and vaginal (no speculum) scrapings were isolated from HPV-positive and negative women, and HPV DNA was assessed by PCR using the MY09/MY11 primer system; HPV type was identified by hybridization of PCR products with type-specific biotinylated DNA probes. Each participant served as her own control. HPV was detected in vaginal and cervical scrapes from all HPV-positive but not HPV-negative women. In HPV-positive women the same HPV type was found in vaginal and endocervical scrapings (positive predictive value = 1.0).

conclusionCorrelation between vaginal and endocervical sampling methods was excellent in detecting the presence of HPV DNA and for identifying distinct HPV genotypes. Utilization of vaginal testing for routine HPV detection, and for the long-term follow-up of persistent HPV infection, is therefore recommended.

Indexed as

Vaginal SmearsActinsAdultCervix UteriDNA, ViralFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPapillomaviridaePapillomavirus InfectionsPolymerase Chain ReactionPredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and SpecificityTumor Virus InfectionsVaginaActinsDNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID11495553
PMCPMC1784642
OpenAlexW2125085281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.