SynthesisJCO global oncology2021
Accuracy of Smartphone Images of the Cervix After Acetic Acid Application for Diagnosing Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 2 or Greater in Women With Positive Cervical Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in JCO global oncology, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Integrated HPV Testing, TCT, and Colposcopic VIA/VILI Improves Detection Rate for HSIL and Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort in China.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Automated analysis of digital medical images in cervical cancer screening: A systematic review.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Value of T lymphocyte subset detection in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.American journal of translational research · 2023Article
- Prevention of Cervical Cancer in Low-Resource African Settings.Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSmartphones are used in cervical screening for visual inspection after acetic acid or Lugol's iodine (VIA/VILI) application to capture and share images to improve the sensitivity and interobserver variability of VIA/VILI. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone images of the cervix at the time of VIA/VILI (termed S-VIA) in the detection of precancerous lesions in women undergoing cervical screening.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2020, were assessed. MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and LILACS were searched. Cohort and cross-sectional studies were considered. S-VIA was compared with the reference standard of histopathology. We excluded studies where additional technology was added to the smartphone including artificial intelligence, enhanced visual assessment, and other algorithms to automatically diagnose precancerous lesions. The primary outcome was the accuracy of S-VIA for the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater (CIN 2+). Data were extracted, and we plotted the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of S-VIA using forest plots. This study was prospectively registered with The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews:CRD42020204024.
resultsSix thousand three studies were screened, 71 full texts assessed, and eight studies met criteria for inclusion, with six included in the final meta-analysis. The sensitivity of S-VIA for the diagnosis of CIN 2+ was 74.56% (95% CI, 70.16 to 78.95; I
conclusionOur results suggest that S-VIA has accuracy in the detection of CIN 2+ and may provide additional support to health care providers delivering care in low-resource settings.
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.