ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2023
Diagnostic accuracy of hand-held colposcope (Gynocular) in comparison with standard colposcope in patients with abnormal cervical cytology or visual inspection with acetic acid positivity: a cross over randomized controlled study.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Performance of Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid and Colposcopy for Detection of Cervical Precancer in Women with High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Infection: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
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
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of a handheld colposcope (Gynocular) versus a standard colposcope in women with abnormal cervical cytology or visual Inspection with acetic acid positivity.
methodsThis crossover randomized clinical trial was conducted in Pondicherry, India, and included 230 women who were referred for colposcopy. Swede scores were calculated using both colposcopes, and a cervical biopsy was performed from the most visually abnormal areas. Swede scores were compared with the histopathological diagnosis, which was used as the reference standard. The level of agreement between the two colposcopes was calculated using Kappa (κ) statistics.
resultsThe level of agreement of Swede scores between the standard and Gynocular colposcopes was 62.56%, and the κ statistic was 0.43 (P<0.001). Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ (CIN 2, CIN 3, CIN 3+) was diagnosed in 40 (17.4%) women. There were no significant differences between the two colposcopes in terms of sensitivity, specificity, or predictive value for detecting CIN 2+ lesions.
conclusionThe diagnostic accuracy of Gynocular colposcopy was similar to that of standard colposcopy for detecting CIN 2+ lesions. Gynocular colposcopes showed a good level of agreement with standard colposcopes when the Swede score was used.
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.