ArticleJournal of cytology
Cervicouterine Cancer Screening - TruScreen™ vs. Conventional Cytology: Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of cytology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- [TruScreen Combined With High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing vs Thinprep Cytology Test Combined With High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Comparative Clinical Study].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Article
- Cervical cancer screening: a comparative study of TruScreen vs. Pap Smear.BMC women's health · 2025Observational
- Evaluation of a real-time optoelectronic method for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer in patients with different transformation zone types.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- An emerging paradigms on cervical cancer screening methods and devices for clinical trails.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCervicouterine cancer (CC) is a health problem worldwide and is the fourth most common cancer in women, with a greater proportion of individuals affected by advanced stages of the disease in developing countries.
objectiveTo determine the sensitivity and specificity of the TruScreen™ opto-electronic device vs. conventional cytology in CC screenings. METHODOLOGY: This is a prospective observational study that included individuals who presented for the first time at the Dysplasia Clinic of the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología from March 1 through April 30, 2016, and those referred due to abnormal conventional cytology. The patients were evaluated with the TruScreen™ device, conventional cytology, colposcopy and, if necessary, cervical biopsy. The results were analyzed by descriptive statistics as well as the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the TruScreen™, using conventional cytology as the standard.
resultsThirty-two patients were included who met the inclusion criteria. The average age of the patients was 40 years (range, 23-61 years). For the diagnosis of high-grade intraepithelial lesions, the TruScreen™ device showed a 43% sensitivity, a 92% specificity, a PPV of 60%, and a NPV of 85%, whereas evaluation via cervical biopsy exhibited a 33% sensitivity, an 86% specificity, a 33% PPV, and an 86% NPV. The Kappa agreement index of the TruScreen™ with the colposcopies was 0.70.
conclusionsTruScreen™ demonstrated low sensitivity and high specificity compared with conventional cytology, which had a high NPV.
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.