ArticleBMJ open2014
Comparative effectiveness study on human papillomavirus detection methods used in the cervical cancer screening programme.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Five-Year Risk of CIN3+ After CIN1 Biopsy in a Norwegian Screening Setting: Comparison of CIN1 Diagnosed in a Single Calendar Year and in Two Consecutive Calendar Years.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- The potential of RNA as a target for national screening of pre-cancer.Journal of public health in Africa · 2018Article
- Cost-effective management of women with minor cervical lesions: Revisiting the application of HPV DNA testing.Gynecologic oncology · 2016Article
- Article
- Comparison of the Roche Cobas® 4800 HPV assay to Roche Amplicor for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2016Article
- 5-type HPV mRNA versus 14-type HPV DNA test: test performance, over-diagnosis and overtreatment in triage of women with minor cervical lesions.BMC clinical pathology · 2016Article
- Minor Cytological Abnormalities and up to 7-Year Risk for Subsequent High-Grade Lesions by HPV Type.PloS one · 2015Article
- HPV mRNA is more specific than HPV DNA in triage of women with minor cervical lesions.PloS one · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the short-term and long-term effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) tests in Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (NCCSP).
designNationwide register-based prospective follow-up study.
settingIn 2005, the NCCSP implemented HPV testing in follow-up of unsatisfactory, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) cytology.
participants19 065 women with repeat cytology and HPV test after unsatisfactory ASC-US or LSIL screening result in 2005-2009.
interventionsThrough individual registry linkages we observed how women were treated in the regular medical care.
main outcome measuresWe estimated cumulative incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) in 6 months and 3 years after repeat cytology and HPV test. Patients diagnosed with CIN2+ in 6 months and 3 years were assessed for initial HPV positivity.
results5392 had ASC-US/LSIL and 13 673 had normal/unsatisfactory repeat cytology; for HPV detection 4715 used AMPLICOR HPV Test (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), 9162 Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) High-Risk HPV DNA Test (QIAGEN, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA) and 5188 PreTect HPV-Proofer (NorChip, Klokkarstua, Norway). Among those with ASC-US/LSIL repeat cytology, 3-year risk of CIN2+ was 15-fold in Amplicor/HC2-positives compared with Amplicor/HC2-negatives and sevenfold in Proofer-positives compared with Proofer-negatives; a 3-year risk of CIN2+ was 2.1% (95% CI 0.7% to 3.4%) in Amplicor-negatives and 7.2% (95% CI 5.4% to 8.9%) in Proofer-negatives. Close to 100% of patients with CIN2+ diagnosed within 6 months tested positive to HPV (all methods). Considering all patients diagnosed with CIN2+ in 3-year follow-up, 97% were initially positive in the Amplicor group and more than 94% in the HC2 group, compared with less than 80% in the Proofer group.
conclusionsWhile the long-term evaluation of new screening routines showed a good overall performance of triage-HPV DNA testing, the management of HPV-negative women with persistent ASC-US/LSIL was suboptimal.
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.