ArticlePeerJ2019
Evaluation of human-papillomavirus screening for cervical cancer in China's rural population.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic evidence for expansion of HPV vaccination for the prevention of cervical cancer in LMICs: BIA framework construction and empirical analysis in China.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Public health impact of 2-, 4-, and 9-valent HPV vaccination in females on cervical and noncervical diseases in men and women under different coverage scenarios in China: A simulation study.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
- Human papillomavirus testing on self-collected samples to detect high-grade cervical lesions in rural Bhutan: The REACH-Bhutan study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Prevalence and genotype distribution of human papillomavirus infections in Beijing, China between 2016 and 2020.Virology journal · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveHuman papillomavirus (HPV) testing has become a preferred cervical cancer screening. However, most HPV infections are harmless and additional tests are required to screen HPV positive women. The objective of this study is to determine the optimal triage strategies for HPV positive women in China's rural population.
methodsA population-based screening was performed at seven rural counties of Jiangxi province, between October 2014 to January 2016. A total of 18,000 women aged 35-64 years were enrolled in this study. The primary screening was performed using CareHPV, HC-2, Cobas ®4,800 or HybriMax. Positive women were further screened with five triage tests: (1) Liquid-based cytology test (LBC); (2) conventional Pap cytology test (Pap smear); (3) HPV16, 18 detection; (4) viral load; and (5) visual inspection with acetic acid and Lugol's iodine (VIA/VILI). Women who were tested positive were referred for colposcopy. The five triage tests were compared with respect to sensitivity, specificity, referral rate, cost and diagnostic time.
resultsComplete data were available for 17,782 women. The HPV prevalence was 13.6%. Referral rates for colposcopy were 4.5%, 2.8%, 2.8%, 6.6%, and 3.7% with LBC, Pap smear, HPV16/18, viral load, and VIA/VILI, respectively. The sensitivity of the above triage tests was 65.8%, 51.9%, 86.8%, 73.3%, and 41.7%, respectively. The specificity was 69.8%, 81.0%, 85.8%, 52.2% and 65.3%, respectively. The average time to diagnosis was significantly lower with HPV16/18, viral load and VIA/VILI than LBC and Pap smear. In addition, screening cost that leads to identify one HSIL+ woman was the lowest with viral load.
conclusionOur data indicate that HPV16/18 and viral load are the optimal triage strategies for HPV screening in China's rural population.
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.