ArticleAmerican journal of clinical pathology2013
Cervical histopathology variability among laboratories: a population-based statewide investigation.
Article in American journal of clinical pathology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2020Guideline
- Digital Pathology with AI for Cervical Biopsies: Diagnostic Accuracy at the CIN2+ Threshold.Cancers · 2025Article
- Unveiling a Dermatological Rarity: The Enigma of Vulvar Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade III (HSIL) and the Role of p53 in Its Development.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Interobserver reproducibility of cervical histology interpretation with and without p16 immunohistochemistry.American journal of clinical pathology · 2024Article
- Cytological DNA methylation for cervical cancer screening: a validation set.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Article
- Re-evaluation of Negative Cone Biopsy Results with Ki-67 and p16 Immunostaining following Positive Cervical Biopsy.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2020Article
- Cervical cancer screening research in the PROSPR I consortium: Rationale, methods and baseline findings from a US cohort.International journal of cancer · 2019Article
- MiRNA detection in cervical exfoliated cells for missed high-grade lesions in women with LSIL/CIN1 diagnosis after colposcopy-guided biopsy.BMC cancer · 2019Article
- Molecular progression to cervical precancer, epigenetic switch or sequential model?International journal of cancer · 2018Article
- Open-Ended Coaxial Probe Technique for Dielectric Measurement of Biological Tissues: Challenges and Common Practices.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Underdiagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or Worse Lesion in Women with a Previous Colposcopy-Guided Biopsy Showing CIN 1.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2017Article
- Usefulness of p16Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2017Observational
- Similar Risk Patterns After Cervical Screening in Two Large U.S. Populations: Implications for Clinical Guidelines.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2016Article
- The Interpretive Variability of Cervical Biopsies and Its Relationship to HPV Status.The American journal of surgical pathology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To inform the proposed systematic adjudicative staining of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) and equivocal diagnoses, we characterized diagnostic heterogeneity across 15 laboratories. Laboratory-specific distributions of 37,486 biopsy specimen diagnoses were compared after adjusting for preceding cytology. In a subset of preceding cytology specimens, HPV16 genotyping was considered an indicator of lesion severity. Distributions of normal and CIN1 diagnoses varied widely, with laboratories favoring either normal (5.5%-57.7%) or CIN1 diagnoses (23.3%-86.7%; P < .001 for normal:CIN1 variability). Excluding extreme values, 6.2% to 14.4% of diagnoses were CIN2 (P < .001). For CIN2 diagnoses, HPV16 positivity in the preceding cytology varied between 39.0% in the largest laboratory and 57.4% in others (P < .001), suggesting differential interpretation, not population differences, as a cause of variability. In conclusion, the frequency of diagnoses requiring special staining (p16(INK4a) immunostaining) to adjudicate equivocal CIN2 will be sizable and vary between laboratories, especially if extended to a fraction of CIN1 lesions.
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.