SynthesisObstetrics and gynecology2019
Human Papillomavirus Genotyping Compared With a Qualitative High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Test After Treatment of High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for HR-HPV persistence and residual or recurrent high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia after LEEP.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of differentiating between persistent and new infections on colposcopy referral in HPV-positive triage-negative women: results from the NTCC2 study.Infectious agents and cancer · 2025Article
- Proposal of a Risk Stratification Model for Recurrence After Excisional Treatment of High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (HG-CIN).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A retrospective study for long-term oncologic and obstetric outcomes in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia treated with loop electrosurgical excision procedure: focus on surgical margin and human papillomavirus.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- HPV Tests Comparison in the Detection and Follow-Up after Surgical Treatment of CIN2+ Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A comprehensive HPV-STI NGS assay for detection of 29 HPV types and 14 non-HPV sexually transmitted infections.Infectious agents and cancer · 2022Article
- Is It Time to Genotype Beyond HPV16 and HPV18 for Cervical Cancer Screening?International journal of public health · 2022Article
- Human Papillomavirus Same Genotype Persistence and Risk of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia2+ Recurrence.Cancers · 2021Article
- Clinical relevance of partial HPV16/18 genotyping in stratifying HPV-positive women attending routine cervical cancer screening: a population-based cohort study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically examine human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping compared with qualitative high-risk HPV result during follow-up after treatment of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), for risk estimation of posttreatment high-grade CIN. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 2000 to April 2019 for prospective studies of women and retrospective studies of residual specimens from women, tested using HPV assays with genotype reporting. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: The primary outcome was posttreatment high-grade CIN after treatment of high-grade CIN. Risk of bias (individual study quality) was evaluated with a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Overall quality of evidence for the risk estimate outcomes was evaluated using modified GRADE methodology for observational diagnostic studies. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND
resultsOf the 233 identified abstracts, 33 full-text articles were retrieved, and seven studies were included in the synthesis. The risk of bias was deemed to be low. Either a positive qualitative HPV test result or a positive test result for the same genotype that was present pretreatment have a sensitivity for predicting posttreatment high-grade CIN that approaches 100%. However, the positive predictive value (PPV) for the same genotype result pretreatment and posttreatment (median 44.4%) is about double the PPV (median 22.2%) for qualitative HPV results. The PPV of a new HPV infection posttreatment approximates zero. Human papillomavirus genotyping discriminated risk of posttreatment high-grade CIN to a clinically significant degree for women after treatment procedures for high-grade CIN lesions, when same-genotype persistence was compared with new genotype infection.
conclusionThere is moderately high-quality evidence to support the improved clinical utility of HPV genotyping compared with qualitative HPV positivity to follow-up after treatment of high-grade CIN. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42018091095. FUNDING SOURCE: Becton, Dickinson and Company, BD Life Sciences-Diagnostic Systems.
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.