SynthesisJournal of lower genital tract disease2020
Reporting and Assessing the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management.
Synthesis in Journal of lower genital tract disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Self-Collected Vaginal Specimens for HPV Testing: Recommendations From the Enduring Consensus Cervical Cancer Screening and Management Guidelines Committee.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2025Guideline
- 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2020Guideline
- An Introduction to the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe adapted the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool for studies of cervical cancer screening and management and used the adapted tool to evaluate the quality of studies included in a systematic review supporting the 2019 Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines.
methodsWe evaluated the quality of all studies included in our systematic review for postcolposcopy (n = 5) and posttreatment (n = 23) surveillance using QUADAS-2 criteria. Subsequently, we adapted signaling questions to indications of cervical cancer screening and management. An iterative process was carried out to evaluate interrater agreement between 2 study authors (M.A.C. and N.W.). Discrepant ratings were discussed, and criteria were adapted accordingly. We also evaluated the influence of study quality on risk estimates and between study variation using stratified subgroup meta-analyses.
resultsTwelve signaling questions for bias assessment that were adapted to or newly developed for cervical cancer screening and management are described here. Interrater agreement on bias assessment increased from 70% to 83% during the adaptation process. Detailed assessment of bias and applicability showed that all studies on postcolposcopy management and 90% of studies on posttreatment management had high risk of bias in at least 1 domain. Most commonly, high risk of bias was observed for the patient selection domain, indicating the heterogeneity of study designs and clinical practice in reported studies.
conclusionsThe adapted QUADAS-2 will have broad application for researchers, evidence evaluators, and journals who are interested in designing, conducting, evaluating, and publishing studies for cervical cancer screening and management.
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.