ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental pathology2008
Papanicolaou test in the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a re-evaluation based on cytohistologic non-correlation rates in 356 concurrently obtained samples.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental pathology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Estimating the accuracy of anal cytology in the presence of an imperfect reference standard.PloS one · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies evaluating the routine Papanicolaou (Pap) test have traditionally used as the reference gold standard, the diagnoses on the follow-up histologic samples. Since the latter are typically obtained days to weeks after the Pap test, the accuracy of the resultant comparison may be affected by interim factors, such as regression of human papillomavirus, new lesion acquisitions or colposcopy-associated variability. A subset of our clinicians have routinely obtained cervical cytology samples immediately prior to their colposcopic procedures, which presented a unique opportunity to re-evaluate the test performance of liquid-based cervical cytology in detecting the most clinically significant lesions (i.e. cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse: CIN2+), using as gold standard, diagnoses on cervical biopsies that were essentially obtained simultaneously. For each patient, cytohistologic non-correlation between the Pap test and biopsy was considered to be present when either modality displayed a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL)/CIN2+ while the other displayed a less severe lesion. Therefore, HGSIL/CIN2+ was present in both the Pap test and biopsy in true positives, and absent in both modalities in true negatives. In false positives, the Pap test showed HGSIL while the biopsy showed less than a CIN2+. In false negatives, Pap tests displaying less than a HGSIL were associated with biopsies displaying CIN2+. Combinations associated with "atypical" interpretations were excluded. A cytohistologic non-correlation was present in 17 (4.8%) of the 356 combinations reviewed. The non-correlation was attributed, by virtue of having the less severe interpretation, to the Pap test in all 17 cases. There were 17, 322, 0, and 17 true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the Pap test, at a diagnostic threshold of HGSIL, in identifying a CIN2+ lesion were 50%, 100%, 100% and 95% respectively. Even in Pap test/biopsy combinations obtained on the same day by the same colposcopist and evaluated by the same pathologist, there is a 4.8% (17/356) false negative rate associated with the Pap test. Our findings suggest that there may be an intrinsic error rate associated with this test modality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18784830PMC2480569W167246144What 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.