Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20808310›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2010

Comparison of Hybrid capture 2 testing at different thresholds with cytology as primary cervical screening test.

D C Rijkaart, V M H Coupe, F J van Kemenade, D A M Heideman, A T Hesselink, W Verweij, L Rozendaal, R H Verheijen, P J Snijders, J Berkhof and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2010. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors.

D C RijkaartDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, Amsterdam 1007 MB, The Netherlands.
V M H Coupe
F J van Kemenade
D A M Heideman
A T Hesselink
W Verweij
L Rozendaal
R H Verheijen
P J Snijders
J Berkhof
C J L M Meijer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe evaluated the performance of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing by hybrid capture 2 (HC2) with different thresholds for positivity, in comparison with conventional cytology.

methodsWe used data of 25,871 women (aged 30-60 years) from the intervention group of the VUSA-Screen study (VU University Medical Center and Saltro laboratory population-based cervical screening study), who were screened by cytology and hrHPV. Primary outcome measure was the number of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+), detected within 3 years. We compared baseline cytology testing with three possible hrHPV screening strategies at different relative light unit/cutoff (RLU/CO) thresholds.

resultsCompared with baseline cytology testing, hrHPV DNA testing as a sole primary screening instrument did not yield a superior sensitivity, as well as lower colposcopy referral rate and lower false positivity rate at any RLU/CO threshold. The hrHPV screening at 1 RLU/CO threshold with cytology triage at baseline and at 12 months revealed the highest sensitivity for CIN3+ (relative sensitivity of 1.32), although still displaying a lower colposcopy referral rate than cytology testing (relative colposcopy rate of 0.94). Higher thresholds (>1 RLU/CO) yielded lower colposcopy rates, but resulted in substantial loss in sensitivity.

conclusionsThe hrHPV testing at the commonly used threshold of 1 RLU/CO with cytology triage at baseline and at 12 months showed a much higher sensitivity with a lower colposcopy referral rate compared with cytology testing.

Indexed as

Nucleic Acid HybridizationVaginal SmearsAdultColposcopyEarly Detection of CancerFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsReferral and ConsultationSensitivity and SpecificityTriageUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID20808310
PMCPMC2965874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.