ArticleMedicine2015
Repeat cytology and human papillomavirus screening strategies in detecting preinvasive cervical lesions.
Article in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Human papillomavirus subtypes distribution among 2309 cervical cancer patients in West China.Oncotarget · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to determine the value of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in screening patients with preinvasive cervical lesions. Seven hundred thirty-four women diagnosed with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS+) cervical cytology during routine screening had additional cytologic testing and HPV DNA testing within 6 months of their diagnosis, after which all women who tested positive were referred for colposcopy and biopsy. The test findings were then used to determine the screening value of HPV for diagnosing preinvasive cervical lesions. Cytology and HPV testing were compared by conventional cytology. The odds ratio (OR) of sensitivity using ASCUS+ or low-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (LSIL+) as a cutoff for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) II+ was, respectively, 0.78 (0.72, 0.85) and 0.82 (0.70, 0.95) (P < 0.01). The cytology for triage and conventional cytology had different sensitivities using ASCUS+ or LSIL+ as the cutoff (P < 0.01). The cytology or HPV testing and conventional cytology had a difference in sensitivity using ASCUS+, LSIL+, or high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (HSIL+) as the cutoff (P < 0.01). Cytology and HPV testing were also compared with conventional cytology. The OR of specificity using ASCUS+ or LSIL+ as the cutoff for the detection of CIN II+ was 1.97 (1.68, 2.31) and 1.10 (1.02, 1.18), respectively (P < 0.01). The cytology for triage and conventional cytology had a difference in specificity when ASCUS+ or LSIL+ was used as the cutoff (P < 0.01). Finally, the cytology or HPV testing and conventional cytology had a difference in specificity when ASCUS+, LSIL+, or HSIL+ was used as the cutoff (P < 0.01). Cytology and HPV testing and cytology for triage improved the specificity of detecting CIN II+, but this did not improve the sensitivity. Additionally, cytology or HPV testing improved the sensitivity of detecting CIN II+ but not the specificity.
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.