SynthesisPloS one2011
Comparative accuracy of anal and cervical cytology in screening for moderate to severe dysplasia by magnification guided punch biopsy: a meta-analysis.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Natural history of anal dysplasia in an HIV-infected clinical care cohort: estimates using multi-state Markov modeling.PloS one · 2014Trial
- Strengthening anal cancer prevention in people with HIV without immediate HRA access-correspondence.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- 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 · 2022Article
- A digital biomarker of diabetes from smartphone-based vascular signals.Nature medicine · 2020Article
- Expectant management surveillance for patients at risk for invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the anus: a large US healthcare system experience.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Article
- Five-year cumulative incidence of invasive anal cancer among HIV-infected patients according to baseline anal cytology results: an inception cohort analysis.HIV medicine · 2015Article
- Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study.BMC medical research methodology · 2014Article
- Lipid raft- and protein kinase C-mediated synergism between glucocorticoid- and gonadotropin-releasing hormone signaling results in decreased cell proliferation.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2014Article
- Clinical implications of the cervical Papanicolaou test results in the management of anal warts in HIV-infected women.PloS one · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What 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.