ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
A Comparative Study on the Accuracy and Efficacy Between Dalton and CINtec
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating Biomarkers into Cervical Cancer Screening-Advances in Diagnosis and Risk Prediction: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Recent Advances in HPV Detection: From Traditional Methods to Nanotechnology and the Application of Quantum Dots.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025Review
- The Immunohistochemical Expression of Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition Markers in Precancerous Lesions and Cervical Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- The Expression of Testin, Ki-67 and p16 in Cervical Cancer Diagnostics.Current issues in molecular biology · 2023Article
- Significance of Triple Detection of p16/ki-67 Dual-Staining, Liquid-Based Cytology and HR HPV Testing in Screening of Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Which is the best management for women with normal cervical cytologic findings despite positivity for non-16/18 high risk human papillomaviruses?Frontiers in public health · 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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCINtec
methodsA total of 717 HPV-positive specimens of cervical exfoliated cells were included. Cytology, Dalton, and CINtec
resultsThe overall positive rate of two DS tests were 28.31% for Dalton and 33.89% for CINtec
conclusionsDalton presents the lower false positive rate and better efficacy in identifying high-grade CIN than CINtec
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.