ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Comparison of PAP smear and liquid based cytology as a screening method for cervical carcinoma.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Population-based self-sampling under primary care conditions - a possible approach for cervical cancer screening in Indonesia (IndoCerCa study).Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Quality of Cell Collected from the Cervix: Conventional versus Liquid-Based Cytology.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026Observational
- The likely possibility of predicting treatment outcomes of cervical lesions using serum FOXP3 and P16INK4A as shown by a cohort study in South Western Uganda.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Identification of hub genes and potential molecular mechanisms of tumor immune microenvironment-related radiotherapy sensitivity in locally advanced cervical cancer.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025Article
- A Comparative Study of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Article
- The Efficiency of Cervical Pap and Comparison of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology: A Review.Cureus · 2023Review
- The Role of p16/Ki67 Dual Staining in Cervical Cancer Screening.Current issues in molecular biology · 2023Review
- A Comparison of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology for Cervical Cancer Screening.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare conventional PAP smear (CPS) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) for cervical carcinoma screening at a tertiary care hospital of South Punjab, Pakistan. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nishtar Hospital, Multan, Pakistan from January 2021 to June 2021. We included a total of 265 women aged between 20 to 65 years who, presented with complaints related to cervical lesion and unhealthy cervix. The CPS and LBC methods were applied for screening of cervical carcinoma. Findings of both CPS and LBC were compared with histopathological findings to find out sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for both techniques. Results: In a total of 265 women, mean age was noted to be 45.4±6.8 years. White discharge per vagina was the commonest presenting complaint noted in 12 (46.8%) patients. Satisfactory smears were found in significantly more cases with LBC in comparison to CPS (p<0.001). Sensitivity CPS and LBC for the detection of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) were found to be 71.8% and 87.2% while for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), sensitivity of CPS and LBC were 61.9% and 76.2% respectively. Specificity of CPS and LBC for the detection of LSIL was found to be 97.9% and 98.7% while for HSIL, specificity of CPS and LBC was 98.7% and 99.2% respectively. Conclusion: In comparison to conventional CPS, LBC was found to be better in terms of adequacy of smear and identification of LSIL and HSIL.
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.