SynthesisScientific reports2022
Comparative accuracy of cervical cancer screening strategies in healthy asymptomatic women: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Human papillomavirus-based vs. cytology for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2026Pooled it
- Cervical cancer survival prediction by machine learning algorithms: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Screening With Universal Access to Vaginal Self-Testing: Outcomes of an Implementation Trial.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Trial
- Human papillomavirus prevalence and ThinPrep cytologic test results among 45,167 women in Shenzhen: A retrospective analysis.IJID regions · 2026Article
- Harnessing Id1 as a biomarker in a plasmid reporter system for cervical cancer.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- HPV testing with 16/18 genotyping for risk stratification among women with normal cytology: a multicenter prospective cohort study from China.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Incidence Trends and Geographic Variations of Corpus Uteri and Cervical Cancer in Taiwan, 1995-2022: A Population-Based Study.Cancers · 2026Article
- Barriers to cervical cancer screening: a cross-sectional study of non-adherent Portuguese women.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- The Role of HPV Genotyping, Cytology, and Methylation in the Triage of High-Risk HPV-Positive Patients.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- The Role of Internet Information on Anti-HPV Vaccines: A Comprehensive Overview of a Double-Edged Sword.Vaccines · 2025Review
- The occurrence of cervical high-grade lesions in women outside the recommended age screening.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025Article
- HPV Infection in Women with ASC-US in Eastern Marmara, Türkiye: Genotype Prevalence and Clinical Implications.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- A stacked learning framework for accurate classification of polycystic ovary syndrome with advanced data balancing and feature selection techniques.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Cervical Cancer Tissue Analysis Using Photothermal Midinfrared Spectroscopic Imaging.Chemical & biomedical imaging · 2024Article
- The Diagnostic Accuracy of Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy-Assisted Colposcopy, HPV mRNA Test, and P16/Ki67 Immunostaining as CIN2+ Predictors in Greek Population.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of high-risk human papillomavirus genotyping for cervical cancer screening. A multicentre screening cohort study in rural China.Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra · 2024Article
- Article
- Microbiota changes: the unseen players in cervical cancer progression.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Review
- Surgical Treatment for Early Cervical Cancer in the HPV Era: State of the Art.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Screening and Early Diagnosis in Gynecological Cancers.Cancers · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To compare all available accuracy data on screening strategies for identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade ≥ 2 in healthy asymptomatic women, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to October 2020 for paired-design studies of cytology and testing for high-risk genotypes of human papillomavirus (hrHPV). The methods used included a duplicate assessment of eligibility, double extraction of quantitative data, validity assessment, random-effects network meta-analysis of test accuracy, and GRADE rating. Twenty-seven prospective studies (185,269 subjects) were included. The combination of cytology (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or higher grades) and hrHPV testing (excepting genotyping for HPV 16 or 18 [HPV16/18]) with the either-positive criterion (OR rule) was the most sensitive/least specific, whereas the same combination with the both-positive criterion (AND rule) was the most specific/least sensitive. Compared with standalone cytology, non-HPV16/18 hrHPV assays were more sensitive/less specific. Two algorithms proposed for primary cytological testing or primary hrHPV testing were ranked in the middle as more sensitive/less specific than standalone cytology and the AND rule combinations but more specific/less sensitive than standalone hrHPV testing and the OR rule combination. Further research is needed to assess these results in population-relevant outcomes at the program level.
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.