ArticleOncotarget2016
Point-of-care test for cervical cancer in LMICs.
Article in Oncotarget, 2016. 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.
- Feasibility of thermocoagulation in a screen-and-treat approach for the treatment of cervical precancerous lesions in sub-Saharan Africa.BMC women's health · 2017Trial
- Article
- Colorimetric Paper-Based Sensors against Cancer Biomarkers.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- An Overview of HPV Screening Tests to Improve Access to Cervical Cancer Screening Amongst Underserved Populations: From Development to Implementation.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Review
- Point-of-care diagnosis of cervical cancer: potential protein biomarkers in cervicovaginal fluid.Turkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi · 2022Review
- Self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening: a qualitative evidence meta-synthesis.BMC public health · 2021Review
- Addressing cervical cancer screening disparities through advances in artificial intelligence and nanotechnologies for cellular profiling.Biophysics reviews · 2021Review
- Qualitative Evidence Synthesis on Self-Collection for Human Papillomavirus-Based Cervical Screening: Protocol for Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
- Point of care testing for infectious diseases.Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry · 2019Review
- LXR/RXR pathway signaling associated with triple-negative breast cancer in African American women.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2019Article
- Technical advances in global DNA methylation analysis in human cancers.Journal of biological engineering · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical cancer screening using Papanicolaou's smear test has been highly effective in reducing death from this disease. However, this test is unaffordable in low- and middle-income countries, and its complexity has limited wide-scale uptake. Alternative tests, such as visual inspection with acetic acid or Lugol's iodine and human papillomavirus DNA, are sub-optimal in terms of specificity and sensitivity, thus sensitive and affordable tests with high specificity for on-site reporting are needed. Using proteomics and bioinformatics, we have identified valosin-containing protein (VCP) as differentially expressed between normal specimens and those with cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 (CIN2/CIN3+) or worse. VCP-specific immunohistochemical staining (validated by a point-of-care technology) provided sensitive (93%) and specific (88%) identification of CIN2/CIN3+ and may serve as a critical biomarker for cervical-cancer screening. Future efforts will focus on further refinements to enhance analytic sensitivity and specificity of our proposed test, as well as on prototype development.
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.