ArticleTurk patoloji dergisi2021
Evaluation of the Performance of CinTec® PLUS in SurePathTM Liquid-Based Cervico-Vaginal Samples.
Article in Turk patoloji dergisi, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and Virological Profiles Associated with CINTECDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- CINtec PLUS: A Novel Alternative Screening Method for Detecting High-Risk Cervical Lesions in Romania.Cureus · 2024Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening in the Molecular Era: Integrating Cytology, Human Papillomavirus Testing, and Biomarkers.Journal of cytologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCervical cytology and Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing are effective screening techniques but both have limitations. A few recent studies in the literature have highlighted the role of co-expression of p16INK4a and Ki-67 for cervical cancer screening. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the CINtec® PLUS kit (dual immunostaining for p16 and Ki-67) in SurePathTM liquid-based (LBC) cervico-vaginal samples. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a prospective study performed on 52 cervico-vaginal SurePath™ LBC samples reported as having squamous epithelial cell abnormality (ECA). All the samples were stained using CINtec® PLUS kits. Additionally, HPV-DNA testing was also done and the results were compared.
resultsThe age range was 34-74 years. ECA included 18 (34.6%) cases of ASC-US, 9 (17.3%) cases of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), 11 (21.2%) cases of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), and 14 (26.9%) cases of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Cervical biopsies were available in 19 (36.5%) cases. A total of 34/52 (65.4%) cases were positive for HPV-DNA (5/18-ASC-US; 6/9-LSIL; 10/11-HSIL; 13/14-SCC). The CINtec® PLUS test was positive in 41/52 (78.8%) cases (11/18-ASC-US; 6/9-LSIL; 11/11-HSIL; 13/14-SCC). On comparing CINtec® PLUS positivity (78.8%) with HPV positivity (65.4%), dual positivity was seen in 3/18 cases of ASC-US, 6/9 cases of LSIL, 10/11 cases of HSIL, and 12/14 cases of SCC. One case each of HSIL and SCC was negative on the HPV test and was positive on CINtec® PLUS.
conclusionsCINtec® PLUS test helps to improve the detection of pre-cancerous cervical lesions as compared to cervical cytology or HPV testing alone and hence can serve as a potentially useful diagnostic and triage tool, especially for indeterminate cases.
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.