Observational studyCancer cytopathology2022
Cytology interpretation after a change to HPV testing in primary cervical screening: Observational study from the English pilot.
Observational study in Cancer cytopathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application and Impact of Quality Assurance Dashboards in Cytology Laboratories-The CytoLog Application.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2026Article
- Review
- How to evaluate and select cervical screening and triage tests in vaccinated populations.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in medicine: a scoping review of the risk of deskilling and loss of expertise among physicians.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- Indicators to identify cancer screening providers with suboptimal case detection: A scoping review.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Redefining Cytotechnologist Practice in Sweden: National Survey on Workload, Expanded Roles, and Future Competency Needs.Acta cytologica · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical Performance of a Liquid Preservation Medium for Cervicovaginal Samples in DNA-HPV Testing and Liquid-Based Cytology for Cervical Cancer Screening.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2025Article
- Screening outcome of HPV-vaccinated women: Data from the Danish Trial23 cohort study.PloS one · 2024Observational
- Supporting the implementation of new healthcare technologies by investigating generalisability of pilot studies using area-level statistics.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Prevalence of human papillomavirus genotypes and related cervical morphological results in southern Hunan Province of China, 2018-2020: Baseline measures at a tertiary institution prior to mass human papillomavirus vaccination.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOvercalling of abnormalities has been a concern for using cytology triage after positive high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests in cervical screening.
methodsThe authors studied the detection of cytological and histological abnormalities at age 24 to 64 years, using data from the English HPV pilot. The pilot compared routine implementation of primary cervical screening based on cytology (N = 931,539), where HPV test results were not available before cytology reporting, with that based on HPV testing (N = 403,269), where cytology was only required after positive HPV tests.
resultsRevealed HPV positivity was associated with a higher direct referral to colposcopy after any abnormality (adjusted odds ratio [OR
conclusionsQuality-controlled cervical screening programs can avoid inappropriate overgrading of HPV-positive cytology.
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.