ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Risk-Based Colposcopy for Cervical Precancer Detection: A Cross-Sectional Multicenter Study in China.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Competing-Risks Approach to the Progression, Regression and Persistence of High-Grade Cervical Dysplasia in Patients over 30 Years Old-A Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A Glimmer of Hope for Patients with a T3 Transformation Zone: miRNAs Are Potential Biomarkers for Cervical Dysplasia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Detection of cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and assessing diagnostic performance of colposcopy among women with oncogenic HPV.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Developing a predictive nomogram for colposcopists: a retrospective, multicenter study of cervical precancer identification in China.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Evaluating the Feasibility of Machine-Learning-Based Predictive Models for Precancerous Cervical Lesions in Patients Referred for Colposcopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Recently published guidelines depend upon screening for cervical precancer risk stratification; however, colposcopy provides key information. There is no data from developing countries that could be used comparatively. Therefore, we assessed the potential benefits of intercalating colposcopic impressions with screening results to detect cervical precancers through a multicenter, cross-sectional study of a Chinese population. Anonymized data from 6012 women with cytologic assessment, human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, colposcopic impressions, and histological results were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) cytology, HPV16/18+, and/or high-grade colposcopic impressions markedly increased cervical precancer risk, while high-grade colposcopic impressions were associated with the highest risk. The risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) ranged from 0% for normal/benign colposcopic impressions, <HSIL cytologies, and HPV negative to 63.61% for high-grade colposcopy, HSIL+ cytology, and HPV16/18+, across 18 subgroups. High-grade colposcopic impressions were associated with a >19% increased risk of CIN3+, even in participants without HSIL+ cytology and/or HPV16/18+. Regardless of screening outcomes, normal/benign colposcopic impressions were associated with the lowest risk of CIN3+ (<0.5%). Integrating colposcopic impressions into risk assessment may therefore provide key information for identifying cervical precancer cases. Adopting this approach may improve detection rates while also providing reassurance for women with a lower risk of developing cervical cancer.
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.