ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2015
Efficacy of a real time optoelectronic device (TruScreen™) in detecting cervical intraepithelial pathologies: a prospective observational study.
Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Article
- Cervical cancer screening: a comparative study of TruScreen vs. Pap Smear.BMC women's health · 2025Observational
- Evaluation of a real-time optoelectronic method for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer in patients with different transformation zone types.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- An emerging paradigms on cervical cancer screening methods and devices for clinical trails.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Comparative Study of Smart Scope® Visual Screening Test with Naked Eye Visual Screening and Pap Test.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2020Observational
- Article
- Cervicouterine Cancer Screening - TruScreen™ vs. Conventional Cytology: Pilot Study.Journal of cytologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effect of TruScreen™ (an objective optoelectronic cervical screening device) in improving the sensitivity of cervical screening programs either alone or in combination with Papanicolaou (PAP) smear or human papilloma virus (HPV) DNA screening. MATERIAL AND
methodsOur study was performed in 285 patients with abnormal Pap test results. TruScreen™ and HPV screening methods were performed in all participants. Consistency and differences between the tests were compared with cervical biopsy results.
resultsTruScreen™ was found to be an approach method in the determination of cervical pathologies (ROC curve area underlined=0.606) and with an 89.5% negative predictive value. HPV screening remains a counterpart to TruScreen™ with a 0.620 area underlined in the ROC curve and an 83% negative predictive value.
conclusionAs determined in our study, TruScreen™ with a sensitivity of 86.1% can be used as a screening test with instant and not professional dependent results for cervical cancer screening. Avoiding from subjectivity in interpretation of Pap smears and requirement for pathologists, TruScreen™ can be a used for cervical cancer screening especially in countries with a low socio-economic status. The combination of TruScreen™ and HPV screening was not able to demonstrate a significant rise of effectiveness in screening.
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.