Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25887444›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2015

5-aminolevulinic-acid-based fluorescence spectroscopy and conventional colposcopy for in vivo detection of cervical pre-malignancy.

Rasa Vansevičiūtė, Jonas Venius, Olga Žukovskaja, Daiva Kanopienė, Simona Letautienė, Ričardas Rotomskis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rasa VansevičiūtėNational Cancer Institute, Vilnius, Lithuania. rasa.vanseviciute@nvi.lt.
Jonas VeniusNational Cancer Institute, Vilnius, Lithuania. jonas.venius@nvi.lt.
Olga ŽukovskajaFaculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania. olga.zukovskaja@gmail.com.
Daiva KanopienėNational Cancer Institute, Vilnius, Lithuania. daiva.kanopiene@nvi.lt.
Simona LetautienėNational Cancer Institute, Vilnius, Lithuania. simona.letautiene@nvi.lt.
Ričardas RotomskisLaboratory of Biomedical Physics, National Cancer Institute, Vilnius, Lithuania. ricardas.rotomskis@nvi.lt.
National Cancer Institute · LTVilnius University · LT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSensitized fluorescence diagnostics are based on selective accumulation of photosensitizer in the tissue where carcinogenesis has started. The present study compared topical 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA)-based fluorescence spectroscopy (FS) in vivo with conventional colposcopy for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) detection.

methodsWe enrolled 48 patients who were referred for colposcopy because of high-grade changes in cervical cytology. Every inspected cervix was divided in to quadrants, and there were 174 quadrants included in the study. Each patient had a cytological smear, colposcopy, FS and histopathological analysis. For FS, 3% 5-ALA cream was used topically and after an average 135 min incubation, fluorescence spectra were recorded from the cervix in vivo. FS and colposcopy results were correlated with histopathology.

resultsAll spectra were evaluated by a ratio of the protoporphyrin IX fluorescence intensity at 634 nm and autofluorescence intensity at 510 nm. For proper grouping of low-risk and high-risk cases, a threshold of 3.87 was calculated. Data per quadrant showed that FS had higher sensitivity than colposcopy (71.7% vs 67.4%) but specificity was greater for colposcopy (86.6% vs 75.6%). Combination of the methods showed higher sensitivity (88.0% vs 67.4%) but reduced specificity (88.0% and 69.5%), but it had the highest number of correctly identified high-risk changes and the highest (79.3%) accuracy. Data for each patient showed FS sensitivity of 91.2%, which was greater than for colposcopy (88.2%). Higher overdiagnosis resulted in decreased specificity for fluorescence methodology-71.4% versus 78.6% for colposcopy. In both cases, accuracy was 85.4% and effectiveness was >80%, which means that both methods can be used to determine high-risk cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. The diagnostic sensitivity of 97.1% for this complementary diagnosis indicates that it could be the best choice for detection of high-risk changes.

conclusions5-ALA-based FS is an objective method, requiring short-term administration for appropriate fluorescence measurements. FS is a promising diagnostic tool with similar accuracy as colposcopy but with the potential advantage of providing objective results.

Indexed as

AdultAminolevulinic AcidColposcopyEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPhotosensitizing AgentsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySpectrometry, FluorescenceUterine Cervical DysplasiaVaginal SmearsAminolevulinic AcidPhotosensitizing Agents

Identifiers

PMID25887444
PMCPMC4405835
OpenAlexW2070126657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.