ArticleActa cytologica2020
Comparison of ThinPrep Integrated Imager-Assisted Screening versus Manual Screening of ThinPrep Liquid-Based Cytology Specimens.
Article in Acta cytologica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- BestCyte® primary screening of 500 ThinPrep Pap Test thin-layers: 3 Cytologists' Interobserver diagnostic concordance with predicate manual microscopy relative to Truth Reference diagnoses defining NILM, ASCUS+, LSIL+, and ASCH+ thresholds for specificity, sensitivity, and equivalency grading.Journal of pathology informatics · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Management of Oncogenic HPV Cervical Infections: The Field Experience in Wuxi, China.Frontiers in 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
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to find out whether ThinPrep Integrated Imager (Hologic Inc.) screening is non-inferior to manual screening in the detection of cervical lesion. STUDY
designFor a total of 4,011 ThinPrep Pap test specimens stained by ThinPrep staining, manual screening (Manual arm) and ThinPrep Integrated Imager screening (Imager arm) were performed so as not to be screened by the same cytotechnologist, and the sensitivity and specificity in the detection of cervical lesion were compared using McNemar's test.
resultsThe sensitivity to detect CIN1 or more squamous cell abnormalities or glandular abnormalities was 91.67% (= 374/408, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 88.44-94.08%) for the Manual arm and 92.40% (= 377/408, 95% CI: 89.28-94.70%) for the Imager arm, and the specificity was 88.87% (= 3,113/3,503, 95% CI: 87.77-89.88%) for the Manual arm and 89.55% (= 3,137/3,503, 95% CI: 88.48-90.54%) for the Imager arm. The differences in sensitivity and in specificity, respectively, were 0.74% (95% CI: -3.14-4.61%, McNemar's test, p = 0.8041) and 0.69% (95% CI: -0.13-1.50%, McNemar's test, p = 0.1125). About the equality of sensitivity and specificity between the 2 methods, 95% CIs of the difference between sensitivity and specificity are in the clinical equivalence range of ±5%, so the Imager arm is non-inferior to the Manual arm.
conclusionThe Imager arm was confirmed to have an equivalent and non-inferior capacity in the detection of cervical lesions compared with the Manual arm, suggesting that its practical application in cervical cytology tests is highly possible.
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.