Trial reportLasers in medical science2017
Comparison between performance of single-fiber reflectance spectroscopy (SFRS) system and colposcopy: a phase III trial.
Trial report in Lasers in medical science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fiber photometry for monitoring cerebral oxygen saturation in freely-moving rodents.Biomedical optics express · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Herein, the performance of single-fiber reflectance spectroscopy (SFRS) in detection of cervical pre-cancerous squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL) was compared with colposcopy. Based on the previous results obtained from 167 samples and finding the contributing parameters in differentiating SILs from non-SILs, a user-friendly interface was developed to detect the SILs using SFRS system. Detection of SILs in 301 patients was performed by both SFRS system and routine colposcopy. In addition to physician-determined sites, four quarters of the cervix were measured by SFRS system and suspicious lesions detected by either method were biopsied. Histopathologic results of the biopsied species were compared to the physician judgments based on colposcopy and the results of SFRS system. SFRS could differentiate between SILs and non-SILs with mean sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 38.3, 60.9, 15.2, and 84.3%, respectively. These values were obtained as 88.3, 10.6, 15.4, and 83.1% for the colposcopy, respectively. Although sensitivity of SFRS in detection of SILs is about twofold less than the colposcopy, it can reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies by a factor of more than 5.5. Therefore, the aid of SFRS system to the physician can reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies. On the other hand, both colposcopy and SFRS methods equally suffer from low detection worth in terms of positive/negative predictive values. In conclusion, using the online, simple and non-invasive SFRS system to choose between several suspicious sites in a patient in the clinic may be recommended.
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.