Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2016
Disease detection and resource use in the safety and control arms of the HPV FOCAL cervical cancer screening trial.
Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Human papillomavirus-based screening at extended intervals missed fewer cervical precancers than cytology in the HPV For Cervical Cancer (HPV FOCAL) trial.International journal of cancer · 2022Trial
- Assessing 10-Year Safety of a Single Negative HPV Test for Cervical Cancer Screening: Evidence from FOCAL-DECADE Cohort.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Risk of high-grade cervical lesions in the second round of primary human papillomavirus testing in CervicalScreen Norway: A population-based cohort study.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe HPV FOCAL Trial is a RCT comparing human papilloma virus (HPV) with Liquid Based Cytology (LBC) screening for cervical cancer. Results are presented for the comparison of the Safety and Control arms after two rounds.
methodsHPV FOCAL included randomisation of women aged 25-65 into the Safety arm, where they were initially screened with HPV and the Control arm, where they received entry screening with LBC, with both arms screened again with LBC at 24 months.
resultsThere are 6203 (Safety) and 6075 (Control) women included in this analysis. For the Safety vs Control arms, Round 1 screening resulted in increased detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse (CIN2+),15.3 vs 10.4 per 1000, RR=1.48 (95%CI=1.08-2.03) and higher colposcopy referral rates, 5.6% vs 3.2%. LBC screening at 24 months resulted in similar colposcopy referral rates, 1.5% vs 1.9%, and decreased CIN2+ detection, 2.0 vs 4.7 per 1000, RR=0.43 (95%CI=0.21-0.88) in the Safety vs Control arms. CIN2+ detection and colposcopy referral rates declined with increasing age in both arms. One round of HPV screening detected similar levels of CIN2+ as two rounds of LBC screening.
interpretationCIN2+ detection at 2 years was lower in those screened by HPV, indicating an improved 2-year negative predictive value of the HPV test.
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.