Trial reportPloS one2017
User perception of endocervical sampling: A randomized comparison of endocervical evaluation with the curette vs cytobrush.
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Endocervical Evaluation With the Curette Versus Cytobrush for the Diagnosis of Dysplasia of the Uterine Cervix
Strategies for Endocervical Canal Investigation in Women With Abnormal Screening Cytology (ASC-H+) and Negative Colposcopy
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosis and Management of Adenocarcinoma in Situ: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology Evidence-Based Review and Recommendations.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2020Guideline
- 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate whether the endocervical brush (ECB) is better accepted by patients and health care providers for endocervical evaluation when compared to the endocervical curette (ECC), without a decrease in the quality of sampling.
methodsTwo hundred patients with cervical dysplasia were randomized at the colposcopy clinic of the University Hospital of Geneva into two groups according to technique. Patients and physicians' preference regarding the technique as well as the quality of samples were assessed. ECB samples were analyzed using both cytological (cell block) and histologic analysis, while ECC samples were analyzed using standard histologic analysis.
resultsOf the 200 patients, 89 were randomized to ECC, 101 to ECB and 10 were excluded due to incomplete information or cervical stenosis. Physicians preferred ECB against ECC, classifying it more frequently as an easy technique (94.1% vs.61.4%, p<0.001). Physicians more frequently evaluated the ECB as little or not uncomfortable for patients (28.7% vs.10.2%, p<0.001), though patients themselves didn't express a preference for either technique. From a quality standpoint, the brush allowed for a better quality of samples, with a lower rate of inadequate samples (2.0% vs 14.3%, p = 0.002) and greater amount of material.
conclusionEndocervical sampling using ECB seems to be easier to perform and provides better quality samples. ECB can therefore be an acceptable alternative to ECC in standard practice.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01435590.
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.