Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26463429›Full record

ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2016

Posttreatment human papillomavirus testing for residual or recurrent high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a pooled analysis.

Mamiko Onuki, Koji Matsumoto, Manabu Sakurai, Hiroyuki Ochi, Takeo Minaguchi, Toyomi Satoh, Hiroyuki Yoshikawa

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mamiko OnukiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1558-7345
Koji MatsumotoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan. matsumok@mui.biglobe.ne.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6184-618X
Manabu SakuraiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8541-4290
Hiroyuki OchiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9177-0171
Takeo MinaguchiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3577-5124
Toyomi SatohDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6929-5463
Hiroyuki YoshikawaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
University of Tsukuba · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe conducted a pooled analysis of published studies to compare the performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and cytology in detecting residual or recurrent diseases after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 (CIN 2/3).

methodsSource articles presenting data on posttreatment HPV testing were identified from the National Library of Medicine (PubMed) database. We included 5,319 cases from 33 articles published between 1996 and 2013.

resultsThe pooled sensitivity of high-risk HPV testing (0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 0.94) for detecting posttreatment CIN 2 or worse (CIN 2+) was much higher than that of cytology (0.76; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.80). Co-testing of HPV testing and cytology maximized the sensitivity (0.93; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.96), while HPV genotyping (detection of the same genotype between pre- and posttreatments) did not improve the sensitivity (0.89; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.94) compared with high-risk HPV testing alone. The specificity of high-risk HPV testing (0.83; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.84) was similar to that of cytology (0.85; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.87) and HPV genotyping (0.83; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.85), while co-testing had reduced specificity (0.76; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.78). For women with positive surgical margins, high-risk HPV testing provided remarkable risk discrimination between test-positives and test-negatives (absolute risk of residual CIN 2+ 74.4% [95% CI, 64.0 to 82.6] vs. 0.8% [95% CI, 0.15 to 4.6]; p<0.001).

conclusionOur findings recommend the addition of high-risk HPV testing, either alone or in conjunction with cytology, to posttreatment surveillance strategies. HPV testing can identify populations at greatest risk of posttreatment CIN 2+ lesions, especially among women with positive section margins.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm, ResidualPapillomaviridaePapillomavirus InfectionsPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificityUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCell BiologyCervical Intraepithelial NeoplasiaHuman PapillomavirusPosttreatment Surveillance

Identifiers

PMID26463429
PMCPMC4695453
OpenAlexW2185053919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.