Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19143057›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2008

Optical imaging for cervical cancer detection: solutions for a continuing global problem.

Nadhi Thekkek, Rebecca Richards-Kortum

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 175 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Detection of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Using Hyperspectral Tissue Signatures.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. A Comprehensive Review of Cervical Cancer Screening Devices: The Pros and the Cons.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Multi-task network for automated analysis of high-resolution endomicroscopy images to detect cervical precancer and cancer.Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nadhi ThekkekDepartment of Bioengineering, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA.
Rebecca Richards-Kortum
Rice University · US

Funding

Optical Systems for In Vivo Molecular Imaging of CancerR01CA103830 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN · PI RICHARDS-KORTUM, REBECCA R. · 2004 to 2015
$12.4M
NCI NIH HHS CA103830NCI NIH HHS R01 CA103830
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for women in developing countries. Optical technologies can improve the accuracy and availability of cervical cancer screening. For example, battery-powered digital cameras can obtain multi-spectral images of the entire cervix, highlighting suspicious areas, and high-resolution optical technologies can further interrogate such areas, providing in vivo diagnosis with high sensitivity and specificity. In addition, targeted contrast agents can highlight changes in biomarkers of cervical neoplasia. Such advances should provide a much needed global approach to cervical cancer prevention.

Indexed as

ColposcopyContrast MediaDiagnostic ImagingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansOptical PhenomenaPrecancerous ConditionsSensitivity and SpecificitySpectrum AnalysisUterine Cervical NeoplasmsContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID19143057
PMCPMC2633464
OpenAlexW2056252502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.