ArticleCancer2016
Expression of p16
Article in Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- FOXP3 serum concentration; a likely predictor of CIN and cervical cancer: Secondary analysis from a case control study at a clinic in South western Uganda.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2024Article
- Micronutrients and prevention of cervical pre-cancer in HPV vaccinated women: a cross-sectional study.Korean journal of community nutrition · 2023Article
- Lipid Nanoparticles for mRNA Delivery to Enhance Cancer Immunotherapy.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- HPV E1 qPCR, a Low-Cost Alternative Assay to Roche Diagnostic Linear Array is Effective in Identifying Women at Risk for Developing Cervical Cancer.International journal of women's health · 2022Article
- A rigorous exploration of anal HPV genotypes using a next-generation sequencing (NGS) approach in HIV-infected men who have sex with men at risk for developing anal cancer.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- Transitioning from HPV 101 to HPV 202.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2017
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhether higher grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN grade 2 or greater [CIN ≥ 2]) that develops because of human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes not included in vaccines may progress to cervical cancer is largely unknown. The objectives of this study were to document expression of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (p16) tumor-suppressor protein p16
methodsThe study population consisted of 371 women who had not received HPV vaccines. Women were categorized into vaccine and nonvaccine HR-HPV genotypes and lesions associated with those types. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine the association between positive expression p16
resultsSpecimens that were positive for p16
conclusionsLesions that may develop because of HR-HPV genotypes not included in HPV vaccines are likely to have similar malignant potential, suggesting that well developed screening programs combined with nonvaccine-based approaches may be needed to manage the residual risk of developing cervical cancer in the post-HPV vaccination era. Cancer 2016;122:3615-23. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
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.