ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2018
Cervical Cancer Detection between Conventional and Liquid Based Cervical Cytology: a 6-Year Experience in Northern Bangkok Thailand
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population-based self-sampling under primary care conditions - a possible approach for cervical cancer screening in Indonesia (IndoCerCa study).Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Quality of Cell Collected from the Cervix: Conventional versus Liquid-Based Cytology.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026Observational
- Evaluation of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Cervical Cell Morphologies from Android Device-Captured Cytopathological Microscopic Images through Artificial Intelligence in Mainly Rural or Resource-Constraint Areas of India.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026Article
- Risk of CIN2+ in women aged >60 years with abnormal cervical cancer screening: a multicenter retrospective cohort study from the Thai Gynecologic Cancer Society research group.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2025Article
- Cervical Cancer Prophylaxis-State-of-the-Art and Perspectives.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Cervical Cancer Screening and Diagnosis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Evaluation of PathTezt™, a Liquid-Based Cytology System.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2021Article
- Cric searchable image database as a public platform for conventional pap smear cytology data.Scientific data · 2021Article
- Systematic screening for cervical cancer in Dakar region: prevalence and correlation with biological and socio-demographic parameters.Infectious agents and cancer · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the prevalence of abnormal Papanicolaou (Pap) smear, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or higher and cancer between conventional Pap smear (CPP) and liquid based Pap smear (LBP). Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand between January 2011 and December 2016. Data was collected from medical records of participants who attended for cervical cancer screening test. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy for detecting CIN 2 or higher were evaluated by using the most severity of histopathology reports. Results: A total of 28,564 cases were recruited. Prevalence of abnormal Pap smear from CPP and LBP were 4.8 % (1,092/22,552) and 5.7 % (345/6,012), respectively. Percentage of unsatisfactory smears in CPP (52.3%) was higher than LBP (40.5%). From CPP and LBP, cervical cancer percentages were 0.2 and 0.1, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of CPP and LBP for detection cancer were 42.5 vs 26.1%, 99.9 vs 100.0%, 69.8vs 75.0%, 99.7 vs 100.0 % and 99.7 vs 99.7%, respectively. Conclusion: Prevalence of abnormal cervical cytology and cancer from CPP and LBP were 4.8/0.2 and 5.7/0.1 percent, respectively. Unsatisfactory smear of LBP was less than CPP. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of CPP and LBP for detection CIN 2 or higher and cancer were comparable.
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.