Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36579981›Full record

Trial reportAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2022

Can portable Colposcopes Replace Standard-of-care Colposcopes? A Crossover Trial of Two Portable Colposcopes with a Standard-of-Care Video Colposcope.

Jayashree Natarajan, Sandeep Mathur, Sreenivas Vishnubhatla, Sunesh Kumar, Shachi Vashist, Nimmi Ramanujam, Seema Singhal, Jyoti Meena, Pranay Tanwar, Neerja Bhatla

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jayashree NatarajanDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Cancer Institute (WIA), Adyar, Chennai, India.ORCID 0000000189530398
Sandeep MathurDepartment of Pathology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Sreenivas VishnubhatlaDepartment of Biostatics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Sunesh KumarDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Shachi VashistDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Nimmi RamanujamDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, NC, USA.
Seema SinghalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Jyoti MeenaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Pranay TanwarLaboratory Oncology, Dr B.R.A.,IRCH, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Neerja BhatlaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences · INCancer Institute (WIA) · INDuke University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreen positive women need to be triaged by colposcopy which is a major challenge in low-middle income countries. Portable colposcopes may overcome many challenges, reduce referrals and enable a single visit approach. This study assessed the performance of portable colposcopes and potential to reduce referral.

methodThis crossover randomised study enrolled women aged 25 to 65 years with abnormal screening result or cervical symptoms. All women underwent visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), HPV test, colposcopy with two portable colposcopes (Gynocular®, Gynius, Sweden, and Pocket® transvaginal colposcope, Duke University, NC, USA) and a standard video colposcope, and biopsy. Colposcopic Swede score agreement between portable and video colposcopes, as well as agreement of Swede score with histology were calculated for each device. The potential impact of portable colposcopes in a single visit approach was assessed based on the final diagnosis.

resultsAmong 250 subjects, 27(10.80%) had high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) lesions. Swede scores for Pocket and Gynocular colposcopes were similar to video colposcope in 248 (99.20%) and 247 (98.80%) subjects, respectively (agreement scores 0.9969 and 0.9954, respectively). At a Swede score cut-off of ≥5, all three devices had identical sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of 96.30%, 92.30%, 60.50% and 99.50,. Ablative treatment offered at field setting would result in optimal treatment in 52.0% and 85.1% cases when screened with VIA and HPV test respectively; using Pocket colposcope could improve this to 94.0% and 95.9%, respectively. Overtreatment and referral rates reduced from 46.8% and 12.4% to 4.8% and 6.0%, respectively, when VIA test is followed by triage with pocket colposcope. These outcomes were comparable to screening with HPV followed by colposcopy triage.

conclusionsPocket colposcope performed comparably to the video colposcope. Used by healthcare providers in the field setting, they can augment the results of VIA significantly.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAcetic AcidColposcopesColposcopyCross-Over StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansPregnancySensitivity and SpecificityAcetic AcidCervical cancerlow resource settingpocket transvaginalportable colposcopesScreening

Identifiers

PMID36579981
PMCPMC9971471
OpenAlexW4313328588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.