ArticleBritish journal of cancer2015
Cervical histology after routine ThinPrep or SurePath liquid-based cytology and computer-assisted reading in Denmark.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of DNA extraction protocols from liquid-based cytology specimens for studying cervical microbiota.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Indicators to identify cancer screening providers with suboptimal case detection: A scoping review.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Pre-analytical reporting in AI-assisted cervical cytology: a scoping review of data acquisition documentation.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Cytology interpretation after a change to HPV testing in primary cervical screening: Observational study from the English pilot.Cancer cytopathology · 2022Observational
- Review of the Standard and Advanced Screening, Staging Systems and Treatment Modalities for Cervical Cancer.Cancers · 2022Review
- High-grade cervical lesions after vaccination against human papillomavirus: A Danish cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2020Article
- Screening history and FIGO-stages among Danish women with cervical cancer in 2012-2014: a register-based study.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Bayesian analysis of baseline risk of CIN2 and ≥CIN3 by HPV genotype in a European referral cohort.International journal of cancer · 2019Article
- High-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in human papillomavirus self-sampling of screening non-attenders.British journal of cancer · 2018Article
- Cervical cancer incidence after normal cytological sample in routine screening using SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology: population based study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Article
- The BD Onclarity HPV Assay on Samples Collected in SurePath Medium Meets the International Guidelines for Human Papillomavirus Test Requirements for Cervical Screening.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe compared the sensitivity and specificity of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and computer-assisted reading for SurePath/FocalPoint and ThinPrep with those of manually read conventional cytology in routine cervical screening in four Danish laboratories.
methodsUsing data from five nationwide registers, technological phases were identified by slide preparation, reading technique, and triage of borderline cytology. Trends in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) were an indicator of the technology's relative sensitivity, and trends in false-positive tests an indicator of relative specificity.
resultsAt 23-29 years, SurePath/FocalPoint statistically significantly increased the detection of ⩾CIN3 by 85% compared with manually read conventional cytology. The 11% increase with ThinPrep was not significant. At 30-44 years, the increase with SurePath/FocalPoint was 58%; the 16% increase with ThinPrep was not significant. At 45-59 years, both technologies led to nonsignificant decreases in the detection. SurePath/FocalPoint doubled the frequency of false-positive tests at any age. With ThinPrep, these proportions remained the same at 23-29 years, but decreased by two-thirds at 45-59 years. In a fourth laboratory with continuous use of manually read conventional cytology, no such trends were seen.
conclusionsThe sensitivity and specificity of modern LBC and computer-assisted reading technologies may be brand- and age-dependent.
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.