Observational studyMedicine2018
Effectiveness of novel folate receptor-mediated staining solution detection (FRD) for cervical cancer screening.
Observational study in Medicine, 2018. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predict the Progression of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia by a Novel Marker Folate Combine with FRα, p16 and Ki-67.International journal of general medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Folate receptor-mediated staining solution detection (FRD) has been recently suggested as an effective tool in the cervical cancer screening. We aim to compare the accuracy of FRD to human papillomavirus (HPV) and thinprep cytology test (TCT) based on cytology-based biopsy.During May 2016 and December 2016, we recruited women who presented for routine cervical lesion screening. The eligible cases were nonpregnant women and not in the menstrual period, aging between 25 and 65. All eligible women were screened with TCT, HPV, FRD testing, and colposcopy.A total of 216 women include 137 (63.4%) cases of cervical inflammation, 27 (12.5%) cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1 (CIN 1), 51 (23.6%) cases of CIN 2, 34 (15.7%) cases of CIN 3, and 12 (5.6%) cases of cervical cancer. The sensitivity were 93.81%, 76.29%, 80.41% for HPV testing, TCT testing, and FRD testing, respectively. The specificities were 16.46%, 34.15%, and 68.29%, respectively. FRD has statistically significant higher specificity than HPV testing and TCT (both P < .05). However, no differences were found in sensitivity (both P > .05). The positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and Kappa consistency coefficient were 39.91%, 81.82%, and 0.08% for HPV testing, 40.66%, 70.89%, and 0.09% for TCT, and 60%, 85.5%, and 0.46% for FRD testing.FRD had favorable accuracy and efficacy in detecting cervical cancer, and therefore could be used as an effective screening tool for cervical cancer screening.
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.