Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21949801›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2011

Comparative accuracy of anal and cervical cytology in screening for moderate to severe dysplasia by magnification guided punch biopsy: a meta-analysis.

Wm Christopher Mathews, Wollelaw Agmas, Edward Cachay

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Cytology-based Screening for Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Immunocompetent Brazilian Women with a History of High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Cancer.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors.

Wm Christopher MathewsDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, United States of America. cmathews@ucsd.edu
Wollelaw Agmas
Edward Cachay

Funding

Unsolicited R24 for the CFAR-Network of Integrated Clinical Sciences, CNICSR24AI067039 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI Michael S. Saag · 2006 to 2026
$99.4M
VirologyP30AI036214 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Maile Ann Young Karris · 1994 to 2026
$78.4M
NIAID NIH HHS AI036214NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI036214NIAID NIH HHS R24 AI067039NIAID NIH HHS R24 AI067039-01A1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe accuracy of screening for anal cancer precursors relative to screening for cervical cancer precursors has not been systematically examined. The aim of the current meta-analysis was to compare the relative accuracy of anal cytology to cervical cytology in discriminating between histopathologic high grade and lesser grades of dysplasia when the reference standard biopsy is obtained using colposcope magnification. METHODS AND

findingsThe outcome metric of discrimination was the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve area. Random effects meta-analysis of eligible studies was performed with examination of sources of heterogeneity that included QUADAS criteria and selected covariates, in meta-regression models. Thirty three cervical and eleven anal screening studies were found to be eligible. The primary meta-analytic comparison suggested that anal cytologic screening is somewhat less discriminating than cervical cytologic screening (ROC area [95% confidence interval (C.I.)]: 0.834 [0.809-0.859] vs. 0.700 [0.664-0.735] for cervical and anal screening, respectively). This finding was robust when examined in meta-regression models of covariates differentially distributed by screening setting (anal, cervical).

conclusionsAnal cytologic screening is somewhat less discriminating than cervical cytologic screening. Heterogeneity of estimates within each screening setting suggests that other factors influence estimates of screening accuracy. Among these are sampling and interpretation errors involving both cytology and biopsy as well as operator skill and experience.

Indexed as

CytodiagnosisMass ScreeningAnus NeoplasmsBiopsy, NeedleFemaleHumansUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID21949801
PMCPMC3176293

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.