ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2015
Granular Quality Reporting for Cervical Cytology Testing.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phenotyping to Facilitate Accrual for a Cardiovascular Intervention.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2019Article
- Improving the Accuracy of a Clinical Decision Support System for Cervical Cancer Screening and Surveillance.Applied clinical informatics · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Quality reporting for cervical cancer prevention is focused on patients with normal cervical cytology, and excludes patients with cytological abnormalities that may be at higher risk. The major obstacles for granular reporting are the complexity of surveillance guidelines and free-text data. We performed automated chart review to compare the cytology testing rates for patients with 'atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance' (ASCUS) cytology, with the rates for patients with normal cytology. We modeled the surveillance guidelines, and extracted information from free-text cytology reports, to perform this study on 28101 female patients. Our results show that patients with ASCUS cytology had significantly higher adherence rates (94.9%) than those for patients with normal cytology (90.4%). Overall our study indicates that the quality of care varies significantly between the high and average risk patients. Our study demonstrates the use of health information technology for higher granularity of reporting for cervical cytology testing.
Identifiers
26306264PMC4525216W2464305951What 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.