ArticleJournal of cytology
Comparative Analysis of Conventional Cytology and Liquid-Based Cytology in the Detection of Carcinoma Cervix and its Precursor Lesions.
Article in Journal of cytology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combined plasma and liquid-based cytology microRNA signatures as biomarkers of high-grade cervical lesions: association with HPV infection and p16 expression.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2026Article
- Preventable, Yet Unprevented: The Cervical Cancer Screening Landscape in Eastern Europe and Bulgaria.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: The conventional smears (CS) and Liquid based cytology (LBC) are important tools to detect carcinoma cervix and its precursor lesions. Aims: The present study was done to compare the cytomorphological features of cervical lesions using both techniques and compare with the histopathological diagnosis. Settings and Design: This was a prospective observational study over a period of 1.5 years at a tertiary care hospital. Methods and Material: A total of 969 women in the age group of 21-65 years presenting with either routine screening or complaints of vaginal bleeding, discharge, or pelvic pain were enrolled for the study. Both the CS and LBC smears were analyzed and compared with the corresponding histopathology diagnosis. The data was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software and Results: There were 8.57% unsatisfactory smears in CS as compared to 0.5% in LBC smears. Liquid-based cytology was superior to conventional preparations in terms of smear adequacy, lesser hemorrhagic and inflammatory background, and presence of more endocervical cells. Liquid-based cytology showed a better yield in detecting all the types of epithelial cell lesions with a concordance rate of 73.9% between the two techniques. On histopathology correlation of these lesions, LBC had a higher sensitivity (96.67%) and diagnostic accuracy (99.08%) as compared to CS (73.33% and 92.66%, respectively). Conclusions: Liquid-based cytology is superior to conventional cytology for the detection of epithelial cell lesions. Reduction in the unsatisfactory smears, a cleaner background, and better representation of the sample are more significantly appreciated on LBC in contrast to CS.
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.