ArticleBMJ open2023
Added value of electrical impedance spectroscopy in adjunction of colposcopy: a prospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) as an adjunctive technology enhances the performance of colposcopy.
designProspective cohort study.
settingUniversity Hospital colposcopy clinic.
participantsColposcopy with EIS for 647 women and conventional colposcopy for 962 women.
interventionsComparison of the performance of colposcopy by referral cervical cytology in two cohorts, with and without EIS as an adjunctive technology. OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), diagnostic testing accuracy to detect CIN2+ with and without EIS and their relative differences between cohorts.
resultsThe prevalence of CIN2+ varied between the cohorts according to referral cytology: 17.0% after abnormal squamous cells of unknown significance referral cytology in EIS cohort and 9.1% in the reference cohort, 16.5% and 18.9% after low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), 44.3% and 58.2% after atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) (atypical squamous cells that cannot exclude HSIL), and 81.9% and 77.0% after HSIL cytology, respectively. Sensitivity to detect CIN2+ was higher in the EIS cohort, varying from 1.79 (95% CI 1.30 to 2.45) after LSIL referral cytology to 1.16 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.23) after HSIL referral cytology, with correspondingly lower specificity after any referral cytology.
conclusionsColposcopy with EIS had overall higher sensitivity but lower specificity to detect CIN2+ than conventional colposcopy. CIN2+ prevalence rates were, however, not consistently higher in the EIS cohort, suggesting innate differences between the cohorts or truly lower detection rates of CIN2+ for EIS, highlighting the need for randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of EIS.
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.