ArticleThe Pan African medical journal2021
Utility of p16INK4a expression for the interpretation of uterine cervical biopsies in Kenya.
Article in The Pan African medical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionhistologic interpretation of hematoxylin and eosin-stained cervical biopsies is subject to substantial discordance among pathologists. Immunohistochemical staining for p16INK4a can reduce inter-observer disagreement. We did a cross-sectional study to evaluate the utility of p16INK4a staining in the assessment of cervical biopsies in Nairobi, Kenya.
methodshematoxylin and eosin-stained sections from 91 colposcopic biopsies diagnosed as negative for dysplasia or as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 1-3 from 2011-2013 in Nairobi, Kenya, were reviewed and immunostained for p16INK4a. Agreement in interpretation of cervical biopsies was compared between primary and consensus review results.
resultson primary evaluation, 16 cases were negative for squamous dysplasia; 23 were CIN 1; 37 CIN 2; and 15 CIN 3. On consensus review, 32 cases were negative for dysplasia; 19 were CIN 1; 16 CIN 2 and 24 CIN 3. Agreement was moderate between primary and consensus histology review results for the diagnosis of low-grade versus high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (Kappa = 0.568). None of the cases negative for dysplasia were positive for p16INK4a expression, but in primary and consensus review results, 17% and 5% cases of CIN 1; 49% and 69% of CIN 2, and 80% and 96% of CIN 3 were p16INK4a positive, respectively.
conclusionthere was significant variability in the interpretation of cervical biopsies on hematoxylin and eosin between primary and consensus review assessments. 75% of CIN 1 cases that were upgraded to CIN 2 during consensus review expressed p16INK4a. These findings demonstrate the role of p16INK4a in increasing diagnostic accuracy and as a marker of high-grade CIN 2/3.
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.