ArticleJournal of clinical pathology1991
Simultaneous in situ genotyping and phenotyping of human papillomavirus cervical lesions: comparative sensitivity and specificity.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 1991. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cytochemical detection systems for in situ hybridization, and the combination with immunocytochemistry, 'who is still afraid of red, green and blue?'.The Histochemical journal · 1995Review
- The discrimination of high-risk HPV types by in situ hybridization and the polymerase chain reaction.The Histochemical journal · 1993Article
- Detection of human papillomavirus in matched cervical smears and biopsy specimens by non-isotopic in situ hybridisation.Journal of clinical pathology · 1992Article
- In situ human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in South African and British patients: evidence for putative HPV integration in vivo.Journal of clinical pathology · 1991Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The sensitivity and specificity of immunocytochemistry were compared with those of non-isotopic in situ hybridisation (NISH) for the direct detection of human papillomaviruses in biopsy specimens. Four monoclonal antibodies raised to the capsid protein of HPV16 were less specific than NISH: all four reacted with lesions containing HPV33, and HPV18. Absolute discrimination of HPV types, therefore, was not possible with the monoclonal antibodies used in this study. The relative sensitivities of these antibodies were also lower than NISH. Sequential immunocytochemistry and NISH on the same section showed that 2.9-13.0 times as many cells were positive by NISH than by immunocytochemistry using the most sensitive monoclonal antibody. These data indicate that NISH has higher diagnostic specificity and sensitivity than immunocytochemistry using monoclonal antibodies to the HPV16 capsid protein.
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.