ArticleJournal of clinical pathology1992
Comparative analysis of human papillomavirus detection by dot blot hybridisation and non-isotopic in situ hybridisation.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of human papillomavirus detection by PCR and non-isotopic in situ hybridisation.Journal of clinical pathology · 1995Trial
- Immunohistochemical expression of mdm2 and p21WAF1 in invasive cervical cancer: correlation with p53 protein and high risk HPV infection.Journal of clinical pathology · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo determine the relative diagnostic performance of non-isotopic in situ hybridisation (NISH) and a dot-blot assay for detecting human papillomavirus (HPV) on exfoliated cervical cells; and to correlate the results with cytopathological assessment.
methodsCervical smears and cytological samples were obtained from 122 patients during the same clinical examination and the presence of HPV sequences determined by NISH and dot-blot analysis, respectively.
resultsDot-blot analysis gave an autoradiographic signal in 15 of 121 (12.4%) cases, while NISH detected viral genomes in 38 of 114 (33.3%) cases. Even in the presence of koilocytosis, where vegetative replication of the virus occurs, NISH was positive in over twice as many cases as dot-blot analysis (NISH 90%, dot-blot 40%), while in smears within normal cytological limits, where the viral copy number is likely to be considerably lower, the differences were more striking (NISH 31%, dot-blot 5%).
conclusionsThese data show that NISH on cytological smears is more sensitive than a standardised dot-blot hybridisation assay for detecting HPV infection in cytological material and is therefore a more appropriate screening tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.