ArticleJournal of cellular and molecular medicine2009
Quality control for normal liquid-based cytology: rescreening, high-risk HPV targeted reviewing and/or high-risk HPV detection?
Article in Journal of cellular and molecular medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Triage of women with equivocal or low-grade cervical cytology results: a meta-analysis of the HPV test positivity rate.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2009Pooled it
- Efficiency of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Testing in Cervical Cancer Screening and Vaccination: A Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Human Papillomavirus Laboratory Testing: the Changing Paradigm.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this prospective study was to compare the number of CIN2+cases detected in negative cytology by different quality control (QC) methods. Full rescreening, high-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV)-targeted reviewing and HR HPV detection were compared. Randomly selected negative cytology detected by BD FocalPoint (NFR), by guided screening of the prescreened which needed further review (GS) and by manual screening (MS) was used. A 3-year follow-up period was available. Full rescreening of cytology only detected 23.5% of CIN2+ cases, whereas the cytological rescreening of oncogenic positive slides (high-risk HPV-targeted reviewing) detected 7 of 17 CIN2+ cases (41.2%). Quantitative real-time PCR for 15 oncogenic HPV types detected all CIN2+ cases. Relative sensitivity to detect histological CIN2+ was 0.24 for full rescreening, 0.41 for HR-targeted reviewing and 1.00 for HR HPV detection. In more than half of the reviewed negative cytological preparations associated with histological CIN2+cases no morphologically abnormal cells were detected despite a positive HPV test. The visual cut-off for the detection of abnormal cytology was established at 6.5 HR HPV copies/cell. High-risk HPV detection has a higher yield for detection of CIN2+ cases as compared to manual screening followed by 5% full review, or compared to targeted reviewing of smears positive for oncogenic HPV types, and show diagnostic properties that support its use as a QC procedure in cytologic laboratories.
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.