ArticleInternational journal of women's health2022
The Application of Liquid-Based Cytological Detection for P16, Cytologic Evaluation and High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Clinical Evaluation.
Article in International journal of women's health, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate the application of liquid-based cytology P16, cytologic evaluation, and high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing in cervical cancer screening. Methods: This study screened 900 women, who attended the outpatient clinic, according to the exclusion criteria of study participants. The study participants' screening results of liquid-based cytology P16, cytologic evaluation, and HR-HPV testing were analyzed. According to the pathological results of the biopsy, the efficacy of different screening strategies for the identification of high-grade lesions was evaluated. Results: The positive rate of p16 expression increased with the severity of cervical lesions. P16 had the highest sensitivity and negative predictive value in identifying high-grade lesions (98.45% and 99.67%, respectively). Liquid-based Papanicolaou test (LBP), on the other hand, had the lowest sensitivity (85.27%) but the highest specificity (85.88%). HR-HPV's positive predictive value and accuracy rate were the lowest (32.77% and 70.03%, respectively). The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Dual combinations of certain tests were set up for this study; P16+LBP, HPV+LBP, and P16+HPV had sensitivities of 98.45%, 96.90%, and 99.22%, and specificities of 80.29%, 63.42%, and 64.33%, respectively. The P16 screening rates of histological and liquid-based cytology approaches were 75.74%. Conclusion: Compared with traditional LBP+HPV, the application of a test that solely screen for P16 or the combined screening method that involves the screening of P16 is more effective in identifying high-grade lesions.
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.