ArticleElectronic physician2015
Comparison of Pap Smear and Colposcopy in Screening for Cervical Cancer in Patients with Secondary Immunodeficiency.
Article in Electronic physician, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Colposcopic Evaluation of Premalignant Lesions of the Cervix and Its Comparison With Liquid-Based Cytology.Cureus · 2026Article
- PAP Test Versus Colposcopy for Cervical Cancer Screening in HIV-Seropositive Women: A Case-Control Study.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2024Article
- HPV DNA status and clinical history of patients are supplements for accurate reporting of the cytological Pap smear.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Encoder-Weighted W-Net for Unsupervised Segmentation of Cervix Region in Colposcopy Images.Cancers · 2022Article
- Radiomics Diagnostic Tool Based on Deep Learning for Colposcopy Image Classification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Role of Artificial Intelligence Interpretation of Colposcopic Images in Cervical Cancer Screening.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comparative analyses of PAP smear data in pre and postmenopause Indian women.Bioinformation · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women worldwide. The sensitivity of conventional Pap smear in detecting cervical lesions before cervical cancer is 51%, which means the false negative value is 49%. The aim of this study was to compare two methods for screening for cervical cancer in patients with secondary immunodeficiency, i.e., the conventional Pap smear and colposcopy.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted on 101 immunodeficient patients who were referred to the Gynecologic Clinic at Shahid Sadughi Hospital in Yazd from March 2011 to August 2012. All patients underwent the Pap test, a colposcopy, and a cervical biopsy, with the latter being considered as the gold-standard test.
resultsThe most frequency of immunodeficiency was noted among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (53.3%), and this was followed by patients who were undergoing chemotherapy (30.7%), patients with lupus erythematosus (12.9%), and patients with AIDS (3%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the Pap smear were 18.2, 98.5, 85.5, 71.3, and 72.2%, respectively. The respective values for colposcopy were 66.7, 98.94, 80, 97.9, and 97%, respectively.
conclusionIn this study the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values of colposcopy were higher than those for the Pap smear in detecting high-grade, cervical, pre-malignant lesions (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: CIN ≥ 2). Therefore, an annual colposcopy is advised for secondary immunodeficient patients instead of a Pap smear.
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.