Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25142620›Full record

ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2014

Performance of a low cost magnifying device, Magnivisualizer, versus colposcope for detection of pre-cancer and cancerous lesions of uterine cervix.

Veena Singh, Aditya Parashari, Sanjay Gupta, Pushpa Sodhani, Ashok Sehgal

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A systematic review of handheld tools in lieu of colposcopy for cervical neoplasia and female genital schistosomiasis.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Looking Beyond VIA to Improve Cervical Cancer Screening in Low Resource Settings.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2022
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Veena SinghDivision of Clinical Research, Institute of Cytology and Preventive Oncology, Noida, India. singhveena52@yahoo.co.in.
Aditya ParashariDivision of Clinical Research, Institute of Cytology and Preventive Oncology, Noida, India.
Sanjay GuptaDivision of Clinical Research, Institute of Cytology and Preventive Oncology, Noida, India.
Pushpa SodhaniDivision of Clinical Research, Institute of Cytology and Preventive Oncology, Noida, India.
Ashok SehgalDivision of Clinical Research, Institute of Cytology and Preventive Oncology, Noida, India.
Institute of Cytology and Preventive Oncology · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the performance of a low cost magnifying device (Magnivisualizer) compared to a standard optical colposcope for detection of precancerous and cancerous lesions of the uterine cervix.

methodsA total of 659 consecutive symptomatic women attending a gynecologic outpatient clinic underwent unaided visual inspection followed by cytology, visual inspection of the cervix using 5% acetic acid (VIA), and VIA under magnification (VIAM) with the Magnivisualizer. All women, independently of test results, were referred for colposcopic examination. Colposcopic-directed biopsies were obtained from all positive lesions and compared to positive VIAM cases.

resultsThe detection rate for VIA positive lesions was 12% (134/659), while it was 29% for VIAM positive lesions (191/659). The sensitivities of detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 and higher lesions were 61.7% for VIA, 88.3% for VIAM, and 86.7% for colposcopy, with a specificity of 58.5% for VIA, 55.8% for VIAM, and 90.4% for colposcopy. The performance of colposcopy and VIAM was moderate (κ, 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.54) for detection of CIN 1 and higher lesions and excellent (κ, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.94) for detection of CIN 2 and higher lesions.

conclusionIn low resource settings, where colposcopic facilities are not available at the community level, a simple low-cost, handheld Magnivisualizer can be considered a valid option for detection of cervical precancerous and cancerous lesions. However, it cannot replace traditional colposcopy because it has a low specificity that results in many unnecessary biopsies.

Indexed as

ColposcopesAcetic AcidAdultAgedBiopsyColposcopyEarly Detection of CancerEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingOptical ImagingOutpatient Clinics, HospitalReproducibility of ResultsUterine Cervical DysplasiaAcetic AcidAmbulatory care facilitiesColposcopySensitivity and SpecificityUterine cervical dysplasiaUterine cervical neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID25142620
PMCPMC4195297
OpenAlexW2116584074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.