ArticlePloS one2021
Evaluation of a real-time optoelectronic method in the diagnostics of CIN over four years of observations.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Therapeutic Options in Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia: A Narrative Review and Clinical Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- [TruScreen Combined With High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing vs Thinprep Cytology Test Combined With High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Comparative Clinical Study].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Article
- Assessment of the Real-Time Photoelectric Detection Device (TruScreen) in Screening for Cervical Precancerous Lesions in Middle-Aged Women: An Observational Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a real-time optoelectronic method for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer in patients with different transformation zone types.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review of the Standard and Advanced Screening, Staging Systems and Treatment Modalities for Cervical Cancer.Cancers · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical cancer is considered to be particularly amenable to prevention and highly treatable in its early stages. The real-time optoelectronic method of cervix examination seemed to be very promising in the detection of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions and demonstrated relatively good efficacy. Although this method was introduced into clinics almost 10 years ago, it has not found its place in diagnostic schemes. At the moment, cytological smears and HPV detection with genotyping are still essential. TruScreen seems to be a slightly forgotten test. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and accuracy of TruScreen in detecting cervical pathology: CIN and cervical cancer confirmed with a histopathological diagnosis in comparison with other methods-cytology and colposcopy over four years of observations. The study was conducted on 130 women with abnormal Pap smear results. We can conclude that a real-time optoelectronic method like TruScreen can be useful as an effective initial cervical cancer screening in developing countries, possibly in combination with other methods. The combination of cytology and TruScreen examination may help clinicians to take decision about the next diagnostics steps (e.g. colposcopy) and contribute to better primary screening for cervical cancer.
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.