Trial reportGender medicine2012
Epidemiologic differentiation of diagnostic and screening populations for the assessment of cervical dysplasia using optical technologies.
Trial report in Gender medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Racial/ethnic differences in HPV 16/18 genotypes and integration status among women with a history of cytological abnormalities.Gynecologic oncology · 2018Trial
- Polymorphisms in the Nonhomologous End-joining DNA Repair Pathway are Associated with HPV Integration in Cervical Dysplasia.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2023Article
- Association of traffic-related hazardous air pollutants and cervical dysplasia in an urban multiethnic population: a cross-sectional study.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2014Article
- Sociodemographic factors associated with pap test adherence and cervical dysplasia in surgically sterilized women.Journal of reproduction & infertility · 2014Article
- Accuracy of optical spectroscopy for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: Testing a device as an adjunct to colposcopy.International journal of cancer · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe report here the logistic modeling of the epidemiologic differences between a diagnostic population and a screening population recruited for the study of optical technologies for cervical cancer detection.
objectivesThe goal of this analysis was to determine if there were differences in the sociodemographic or clinical factors between subjects recruited to our diagnostic and screening trials.
methodsEpidemiologic data were obtained from a risk factor interview as a component of a multicenter Phase II clinical trial that used fluorescence and reflectance point spectroscopy to diagnose cervical disease. Participants with recent or past abnormal findings on a Papanicolaou smear were grouped into the diagnostic (high-risk) population, whereas those with a history of normal findings on Papanicolaou smears and no cervical treatments were grouped into the screening (low-risk) population.
resultsOur model revealed that nonwhite race, higher than a high school education, and peri- and postmenopausal status were associated with the screening population. A history of genital infections, current oral contraceptive use, human papillomavirus positivity (by Hybrid Capture II and consensus polymerase chain reaction), and worst histological diagnosis at clinic visit were important predictors of being in the diagnostic group.
conclusionsWe were successful in recruiting 2 distinctive populations and anticipate being able to use these results to more correctly classify women at higher risk for cervical lesions in our future studies of optical spectroscopy.
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.