ArticlePloS one2021
Validation of the indication for colposcopy proposed by the 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines: A single-center study in China.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Significance of High-Risk HPV Positivity with Negative Cytology: Can Further Evaluation Be Safely Delayed?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Comparative Diagnostic Performance of DNA Ploidy Analysis and p16/Ki67 Dual-Staining with Cytology in hrHPV-Defined Subgroups: A Single-Center Evaluation.Cancer management and research · 2026Article
- A Competing-Risks Approach to the Progression, Regression and Persistence of High-Grade Cervical Dysplasia in Patients over 30 Years Old-A Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Expression of genes regulating cell division in porcine follicular granulosa cells.Cell division · 2023Article
- Expression of genes regulating cell division in porcine follicular granulosa cells.Cell division · 2023Article
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
objectiveTo validate the colposcopy indication proposed by the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests (the 2019 ASCCP guidelines).
methodsClinical data of 1404 patients who underwent colposcopy in single center in China were reviewed. Based on history and current cervical screening (HPV & cytology), corresponding recommendations were given according to the 2019 ASCCP guidelines. The agreement and discrepancy of colposcopy indication were analyzed between the Chinese consensus and the 2019 ASCCP guidelines.
resultsColposcopy indication was matched in about 80% patients. The left 20% were recommended with follow-up by the 2019 ASCCP guidelines. The discrepancy mainly focused on patients having a current result of HPV-positive NILM without unknown history. The ratio of observed CIN3+ in our database over estimated CIN3+ by the 2019 ASCCP guidelines was 6.2 (31/5). The ratio was even higher in patients with HPV16/18-positive NILM (7, 28/4), compared with those with other types of high-risk HPV-positive NILM (3, 3/1). The 2019 ASCCP guidelines had a relatively high sensitivity (83.1%), a low specificity (21.5%), a low positive predictive value (14.1%) and a high negative predictive value (89.1%) for prediction of CIN 3+.
conclusionsWe could try to apply the 2019 ASCCP guidelines in Chinese population. The classification of HR-HPV was strongly recommended during risk assessment. For patients with HPV16/18 infection, colposcopy should be recommended. Perspective multi-center randomized controlled trial with reliable follow-up should be performed in the future to confirm the feasibility.
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.