ArticleTurk patoloji dergisi2020
Comparison of the Diagnostic Utility of Manual Screening and the ThinPrep Imaging System in Liquid-Based Cervical Cytology.
Article in Turk patoloji dergisi, 2020. 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.
- ZNF671 methylation test in cervical scrapings for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cervical cancer detection.Cell reports. Medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic results of the ThinPrep manual method (TPMM) and ThinPrep automated method (TPAM) in liquid-based cytology and present the advantages and disadvantages of both methods. MATERIAL AND
methodA total of 1.500 randomized ThinPrep Pap tests that were screened manually and archived in 2015 were reviewed by a blinded researcher manually and by the ThinPrep automatic method.
resultsThere was a 83.3% increase in the detection of ASCUS (Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance) with the TPAM compared to the TPMM, and with respect to the reference results, the accuracy was higher for the TPAM than for the TPMM. We also noted a 33.3% increase in the rate of LSIL (Low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) and 20% increase in the rate of HSIL (High grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) by the TPAM. Concordance was best between the TPAM and reference cytologic diagnoses. The sensitivity was higher for the TPAM and the specificity was similar for both methods. The false positive rate was higher for the TPAM than the TPMM but the false negative rate was higher for the TPMM. We determined a 30% gain in screening time per smear by the TPAM. However, rejection of many samples by the system, especially because of air bubbles, was a limitation of the TPAM.
conclusionThe TPAM has advantages over the TPMM as well as disadvantages such as limiting features and a high false positive rate. The TPAM should be supported by the manual method to decrease the false positive rate.
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.