Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21166883›Full record

ArticleHuman cell2010

Comparison of conventional and liquid-based cytology, and human papillomavirus testing using SurePath preparation in Japan.

Hideki Taoka, Yasuhiro Yamamoto, Nobuyuki Sakurai, Mami Fukuda, Yasuyuki Asakawa, Akiko Kurasaki, Toshiaki Oharaseki, Kaneyuki Kubushiro

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Human cell, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors.

Hideki TaokaDepartments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Toho University School of Medicine Ohashi Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasuhiro Yamamoto
Nobuyuki Sakurai
Mami Fukuda
Yasuyuki Asakawa
Akiko Kurasaki
Toshiaki Oharaseki
Kaneyuki Kubushiro

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We compared the detection rate of cervical neoplasias between a liquid-based cytology (LBC) method using SurePath and the conventional method. We also studied the feasibility of human papillomavirus (HPV) typing by linear array assay. Cytological specimens from 1551 Japanese women were prepared using the conventional and SurePath methods; the cytological and histological results from biopsy samples were compared. HPV typing using an HPV linear array assay was carried out on residual specimens using the SurePath method. The cytodiagnostic results showed a concordance rate of 85.3% (Κ= 0.46) between the two methods. The sensitivity of lesions histopathologically diagnosed as CIN1 or above was not significantly different between the two methods (P = 0.575-1.000). The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the detectability in CIN2 or above revealed no significant difference between the two methods (P = 0.096). Among the 44 patients who underwent HPV typing using a linear array assay, 33 samples were eligible for HPV testing and were stored at ambient temperature. In conclusion, the SurePath and conventional methods have equivalent abilities for detecting cervical lesions. After preparation for cytological diagnosis, use of the remaining cells from the SurePath specimens to perform HPV typing using the linear array method could be feasible.

Indexed as

GenotypeAdultAgedAlphapapillomavirusCarcinoma, Squamous CellCytodiagnosisFemaleHumansJapanMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.