Correction: Defining the genetic susceptibility to cervical neoplasia-A genome-wide association study.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Cervicovaginal Microbiome: Physiology, Age-Related Changes, and Protective Role Against Human Papillomavirus Infection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
   Review
2. A Comprehensive View of the Cancer-Immunity Cycle (CIC) in HPV-Mediated Cervical Cancer and Prospects for Emerging Therapeutic Opportunities.Cancers · 2023
   Review
3. Familial Clustering, Second Primary Cancers and Causes of Death in Penile, Vulvar and Vaginal Cancers.Scientific reports · 2019
   Article
4. Genetic diversity and phylogenetic analysis of HPV 16 & 18 variants isolated from cervical specimens of women in Saudi Arabia.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2019
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Defining the genetic susceptibility to cervical neoplasia-A genome-wide association study.2017

Authors and funding

31 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract