Observational studyRevista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social2022
[Comparison of the Pap smear with conventional technique versus modified technique].
Observational study in Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the fact that the Papanicolaou technique is the most effective method of prevention and detection of cervical cancer, the precision of this tool remains controversial; Because of this, there are medical and scientific efforts to improve the quality of the procedure. Objective: Compare the quality of sampling between the conventional and modified technique. Material and methods: Descriptive and comparative observational study in 150 cervical cytology samples (75 conventional technique samples and 75 in modified technique) in women aged 25 to 64 years. Demographic variables, characteristics of the cervix and quality of the sample were analyzed. Descriptive statistics and association measures were performed. Study with risk greater than the minimum. All participants signed an informed consent. Results: The quality of the sample was satisfactory in 92.0% for the conventional technique vs 89.3% for the modified technique. The main cause of unsatisfactory samples was insufficient cellularity 6.7% in conventional technique vs 12% of the modified technique, with no significant difference between both techniques p = 0.575 (1.37; 0.45-4.1), findings that reject the working hypothesis. Conclusions: There was no significant difference when using both tests, the samples with satisfactory quality were similar between both techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35759446PMC10395926What 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.