ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024
A Prospective Study on the Progression, Recurrence, and Regression of Cervical Lesions: Assessing Various Screening Approaches.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective Evaluation of Cytology, CINtecJournal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Demographic and Screening-to-Diagnosis Cascade Indicators for Risk Stratification in an Organized Cervical Cancer Screening Program: Evidence from 82,141 Women in Yunnan, China.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- A Competing-Risks Approach to the Progression, Regression and Persistence of High-Grade Cervical Dysplasia in Patients over 30 Years Old-A Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical and Virological Profiles Associated with CINTECDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Predictive Performance of miR-124-2 and FAM19A4 for Cervical Lesions in a Single Center from Romania: A Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Optimization and analytical validation of the Allplex HPV28 genotyping assay for use in first-void urine samples.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- ECC at LLETZ-An Exploratory Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: The prediction of cervical lesion evolution is a challenge for clinicians. This prospective study aimed to determine and compare the predictive accuracy of cytology, HPV genotyping, and p16/Ki67 dual staining alone or in combination with personal risk factors in the prediction of progression, regression, or persistence of cervical lesions in human papillomavirus (HPV)-infected patients; (2) Methods: This prospective study included HPV-positive patients with or without cervical lesions who underwent follow-up in a private clinic. We calculated the predictive performance of individual tests (cervical cytology, HPV genotyping, CINtecPlus results, and clinical risk factors) or their combination in the prediction of cervical lesion progression, regression, and persistence; (3) Results: The highest predictive performance for the progression of cervical lesions was achieved by a model comprising a Pap smear suggestive of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), the presence of 16/18 HPV strains, a positive p16/Ki67 dual staining result along with the presence of at least three clinical risk factors, which had a sensitivity (Se) of 74.42%, a specificity of 97.92%, an area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.961, and an accuracy of 90.65%. The prediction of cervical lesion regression or persistence was modest when using individual or combined tests; (4) Conclusions: Multiple testing or new biomarkers should be used to improve HPV-positive patient surveillance, especially for cervical lesion regression or persistence prediction.
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.