ArticleBMC cancer2020
Analysis of the role of the human papillomavirus 16/18 E7 protein assay in screening for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a case control study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of HPV E6/E7 oncoprotein tests to detect high-grade cervical lesions: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.British journal of cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Fused toes homolog, a potential molecular regulator of human papillomavirus type 16 E6 and E7 oncoproteins in cervical cancer.PloS one · 2022Article
- Serum HPV16 E7 Oncoprotein Is a Recurrence Marker of Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinomas.Cancers · 2021Article
- A Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Randomized (Phase IIB) Trial of Oral Administration with HPV16 E7-ExpressingVaccines · 2021Article
- Article
- Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18 in Oral Malignant and Potentially Malignant Disorders: A Polymerase Chain Reaction Analysis - A Comparative Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is the second-most common gynecological cancer, early screening plays a key role in the diagnosis and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Sustained E7 protein expression is the pathological basis for CIN and cervical cancer.
methodsWe collected the cervical cell samples of women who visited the gynecological clinic of Peking Union Medical College Hospital between September 2018 and September 2019 and submitted them to the high-risk human papillomavirus (Hr-HPV) test. We performed a magnetic particle-based chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay to analyze the HPV16/18 E7 protein level in CIN of different severities and compared the results with those of cervical pathology (gold standard) and the HPV test.
resultsThe positive rate of HPV16/18 E7 protein increased with the severity of CIN: 26.6% in normal tissue, 58.3% in CIN1, and 70.6% in CIN2 or higher (CIN2+). For CIN2+, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the E7 protein were 70.6, 67.9, 52.2, and 82.3%, respectively. These values of the HPV test were 86.8, 44.5, 43.7, and 87.1%, respectively. With the combination of the E7 protein assay and HPV test, the specificity for diagnosing CIN2+ was 78.1%, which was significantly higher than that of the HPV test alone.
conclusionsHPV16/18 E7 protein level is correlated with the severity of CIN and has a high concordance rate with the pathological result. For cervical cancer screening, the combination of HPV16/18 E7 protein assay and HPV test improves the CIN diagnostic specificity, detection rate, and detection accuracy.
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.