ArticleGynecology and minimally invasive therapy
A Comparison of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology for Cervical Cancer Screening.
Article in Gynecology and minimally invasive therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Cervical Cancer Screening in Transition: Global Challenges and Local Realities.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-driven screening, early diagnosis, and treatment strategies for cervical cancer: an overview.Infectious agents and cancer · 2025Review
- Progress in the application research of cervical cancer screening developed by artificial intelligence in large populations.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- A Comparative Study of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology.Health science reports · 2025Article
- CINtec PLUS: A Novel Alternative Screening Method for Detecting High-Risk Cervical Lesions in Romania.Cureus · 2024Article
- 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
- Article
- Erratum: A Comparison of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology for Cervical Cancer Screening.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Early diagnosis and treatment of preinvasive lesions have made cervical cytology one of the most effective methods of cancer screening in industrialized nations, which have seen a sharp decline in the incidence and death of invasive cancer. The aim of this study is to compare liquid-based cytology (LBC) and conventional Pap on cervical smears. Materials and Methods: From July 2018 to June 2022, 600 patients were included in this cross-sectional study, which was done at the Pathology Department of a Tertiary Care Facility in Western Maharashtra. Results: Of the 600 patients, 570 (95%) had good conventional Pap smear (CPS), whereas 30 (5%) had poor ones. Five hundred and ninety-two (98.6%) LBC smears were satisfactory, whereas 8 (1.4%) were unsatisfactory. Endocervical cells were seen in 294 (49%) CPS, whereas 360 (60%) LBC smears showed endocervical cells. The morphology of inflammatory cells was similar in both techniques. Hemorrhagic background was seen in 212 (35%) CPS and 76 (12.6%) LBC smears. Only two samples showed diathetic background, which was seen on both CPS and smear. Out of the satisfactory smears in the case of CPS, 512 (85%) cases were reported as negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM), whereas 58 (9.7%) cases were reported as epithelial cell abnormality. In LBC smears, 526 (87.3%) were reported as NILM, whereas 66 (11%) were reported as epithelial cell abnormality. Organisms were detected in 208 (34%) CPS and 162 (27%) LBC smears. Screening time was 5 ± 1 min for CPS, whereas it was 3 ± 1 min for LBC smear. Conclusion: Mortality will be decreased using LBC on a bigger scale in nations where many smears can be made and screened in a short amount of time, with the provision of doing human papillomavirus-based testing on the remaining sample.
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.