ArticlePloS one2024
Real-world effectiveness of cytology and HPV-based screening strategy in cervical cancer screening: A cross-sectional population-based study in Chengdu, China.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urban-rural disparities in HPV prevalence and genotype distribution: a large-scale cervical cancer screening study in Xi'an, China.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Age-specific clinical performance of HPV-based vs. cytology-based cervical cancer screening in China.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Screening for Cervical Intraepithelial Lesions with TCT and HPV DNA: A Triage Strategy.International journal of women's health · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical cancer poses a significant health challenge in developing countries, emphasizing the need for appropriate screening strategies to accelerate the elimination of this disease. This study summarized the results of a large-scale community-based cervical cancer screening program conducted in Chengdu, China, to understand the prevalence of HPV infection and cervical lesions in the population, and to compare the real-world effectiveness of two different screening methods implemented in the program. From January 2021 to December 2022, a total of 363,376 women aged 35-64 years in Chengdu received free screenings. Among these participants, 70.1% received cytology screening and 29.9% received HPV testing combined with 16/18 genotyping and cytology triage. Ultimately, 824 cases of high-grade lesions and cervical cancer were detected, with a total detection rate of cervical cancer and precancerous lesions of 226.8 per 100,000. The follow-up rate of patients with high-grade lesions and above was 98.9%, and the treatment rate was 86.6%. The overall high-risk HPV infection rate was 11.7%, with the HPV 16/18 infection rate of 1.4%. The rate of abnormal cytology results was 2.8%. The attendance rates for colposcopy and histopathology were 71.6% and 86.1%, respectively. By calculating the age-standardized rates to eliminate the different age composition between the two group, the HPV-based screening strategy had a higher rate of primary screening abnormalities (3.4% vs. 2.8%, P<0.001), higher attendance rates of colposcopy (76.5% vs. 68.9%, P<0.001) and histopathological diagnosis (94.1% vs. 78.0%, P<0.001), higher percentage of abnormal colposcopy results (76.0% vs. 44.0%, P<0.001), and higher detection rate of cervical precancerous lesions and cancer (393.1 per 100,000 vs. 156.4 per 100,000, P<0.001) compared to cytology screening. Our study indicates that the combination of HPV testing with 16/18 genotyping and cytology triage has demonstrated superior performance in cervical cancer screening compared to cytology alone in large-scale population.
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.