Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35552564›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Addition of digital VIA/VILI to conventional naked-eye examination for triage of HPV-positive women: A study conducted in a low-resource setting.

Eva Dufeil, Bruno Kenfack, Evelyn Tincho, Jovanny Fouogue, Ania Wisniak, Jessica Sormani, Pierre Vassilakos, Patrick Petignat

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comparing visual inspection with acetic acid, with and without Lugol's Iodine for triage of HPV self-sample positive women in Ethiopia: a randomized controlled trial.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2024
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Eva DufeilFaculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8260-8308
Bruno KenfackFaculty of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Science, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon.ORCID 0000-0002-5157-1378
Evelyn TinchoFaculty of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Science, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon.
Jovanny FouogueDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bafoussam Regional hospital, Bafoussam, Cameroon.ORCID 0000-0003-0055-0902
Ania WisniakGynecology Division, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jessica SormaniGynecology Division, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7111-3975
Pierre VassilakosGynecology Division, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Patrick PetignatFaculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Université de Dschang · CMUniversity Hospital of Geneva · CHUniversity of Geneva · CHHES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorld Health Organization guidelines for cervical cancer screening recommend HPV testing followed by visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) for triage if HPV positive. In order to improve visual assessment and identification of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and worse (CIN2+), providers may use visual aids such as digital cameras.

objectivesTo determine whether combined examination by naked-eye and digital VIA (D-VIA) and VILI (D-VILI) improves detection of CIN2+ as compared to the conventional evaluation. MATERIALS AND

methodsWomen (30-49 years) living in Dschang (West Cameroon) were prospectively invited to a cervical cancer screening campaign. Primary HPV-based screening was followed by VIA/VILI and D-VIA/VILI if HPV-positive. Health care providers independently defined diagnosis (pathological or non-pathological) based on naked-eye VIA/VILI and D-VIA/VILI. Decision to treat was based on combined examination (VIA/VILI and D-VIA/VILI). Cervical biopsy and endocervical curettage were performed in all HPV-positive participants and considered as reference standard. Diagnostic performance of individual and combined naked-eye VIA/VILI and D-VIA/VILI was evaluated. A sample size of 1,500 women was calculated assuming a prevalence of 20% HPV positivity and 10% CIN2+ in HPV-positive women.

resultsDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study had to terminate prematurely. A total of 1,081 women with a median age of 40 (IQR 35.5-45) were recruited. HPV positivity was 17.4% (n = 188) and 26 (14.4%) had CIN2+. Naked-eye VIA and D-VIA sensitivities were 80.8% (95% CI 60.6-93.4) and 92.0% (95% CI 74.0-99.0), and specificities were 31.2% (95% CI 24-39.1) and 31.6% (95% CI 24.4-39.6), respectively. The combination of both methods yielded a sensitivity of 92.3% (95% CI 74.9-99.1) and specificity of 23.2% (95% CI 16.8-30.7). A trend towards improved sensitivity was observed, but did not reach statistical significance.

conclusionAddition of D-VIA/VILI to conventional naked-eye examination may be associated with improved CIN2+ identification. Further studies including a larger sample size are needed to confirm these results.

Indexed as

COVID-19Papillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAcetic AcidEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPandemicsSensitivity and SpecificityTriageVaginal SmearsAcetic Acid

Identifiers

PMID35552564
PMCPMC9098068
OpenAlexW4285740540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.