Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33316096›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2021

A systematic review of handheld tools in lieu of colposcopy for cervical neoplasia and female genital schistosomiasis.

Solrun Søfteland, Motshedisi Hannah Sebitloane, Myra Taylor, Borghild Barth Roald, Sigve Holmen, Hashini Nilushika Galappaththi-Arachchige, Svein Gunnar Gundersen, Eyrun Floerecke Kjetland

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Solrun SøftelandNorwegian Center for Imported and Tropical Diseases, Department of Infectious Diseases Ullevaal, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Motshedisi Hannah SebitloaneDiscipline of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Myra TaylorDiscipline of Public Health Medicine, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Borghild Barth RoaldFaculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Sigve HolmenNorwegian Center for Imported and Tropical Diseases, Department of Infectious Diseases Ullevaal, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Hashini Nilushika Galappaththi-ArachchigeNorwegian Center for Imported and Tropical Diseases, Department of Infectious Diseases Ullevaal, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Svein Gunnar GundersenInstitute for Global Development and Planning, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.
Eyrun Floerecke KjetlandNorwegian Center for Imported and Tropical Diseases, Department of Infectious Diseases Ullevaal, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Oslo University Hospital · NOUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal · ZAUniversity of Agder · NOUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVisualization of the lesions in the lower genital tract is the mainstay for diagnosis of the four lesions found in female genital schistosomiasis (FGS), but colposcopes are generally not available in low-resource settings.

objectiveWe sought to review handheld devices that could potentially be used for FGS diagnosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline and Embase 2015-2019 for handheld devices used in cervical cancer screening and FGS diagnosis. SELECTION CRITERIA: We excluded studies that did not compare the device to standard-of-care colposcopes or histopathology. MAIN RESULTS AND

conclusionIn 11 studies, four handheld colposcopes, two smartphones, and one compact digital camera were evaluated. Two handheld colposcopes were found to be potentially adequate for FGS diagnosis, namely Gynocular and Mobile ODT. The smartphones and digital camera did not have sufficient magnification to diagnose grainy sandy patches, one of the FGS lesion types. Customized software should be made to support the diagnosis of both FGS and cervical neoplasia. Real-time postgraduate training and quality control should be considered in future studies of handheld colposcopes. For patients from schistosomiasis endemic areas, we recommend that handheld devices are used for FGS. Studies are needed to determine which of the two devices is most adequate for FGS diagnosis in schistosomiasis endemic areas.

Indexed as

ColposcopyEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGenital Diseases, FemaleHumansSchistosomiasisUterine Cervical Neoplasmscervicaldiagnosisfemale genital schistosomiasishandheldinfertilitymobile colposcopyneoplasiascreening

Identifiers

PMID33316096
PMCPMC8248063
OpenAlexW3113159384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.