ArticleJournal of mid-life health
Diagnostic Efficacy of Enhanced Visual Assessment [Visual Check] for Triaging Cervical Cancer Screen Positive Women.
Article in Journal of mid-life health. 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.
- Artificial intelligence-driven screening, early diagnosis, and treatment strategies for cervical cancer: an overview.Infectious agents and cancer · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Colposcopy is important for triaging any abnormal cervical screening test. Scarcity of trained colposcopists and colposcopy centers is a big hurdle to screening programs in low- and middle-income countries. Objectives of the Study: The objective was to assess the performance of the artificial intelligence incorporated into the mobile optical device technologies (ODT) Enhanced Visual Assessment (EVA visual check) against physician colposcopic diagnosis and the gold standard of histopathology. Materials and Methods: It was a cross-sectional observational study conducted on women referred to a colposcopy clinic following an abnormal screening test. Colposcopic examination was performed by colposcopists using the MobileODT EVA system. Physician's impression and Visual Check analysis were compared with the final histopathological analysis or cytology. Cases with normal cytology and normal colposcopy did not undergo biopsy, and these were considered normal. Results: A total of 2050 women were screened, and 147 screen-positive women were recruited in the study. EVA Visual Check had a sensitivity of 86.8% (75-95), specificity of 28.7% (20-39), positive predictive value (PPV) of 40.7% (32-50), negative predictive value (NPV) of 79.4% (62-91), and diagnostic accuracy of 49.7% (41-58) for diagnosing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1+ lesions. EVA Visual Check has a sensitivity of 89.3% (72-98), specificity of 26.1% (18-35), PPV of 22.1% (15-31), NPV of 91.2% (76-98), and diagnostic accuracy of 38.1% (30-46) for CIN 2+ lesions. Conclusion: MobileODT EVA colposcope with AI has sensitivity comparable to physician's diagnosis, whereas specificity, PPV, and NPV were less than that of physician's diagnosis. It could prove valuable for triage of screen-positive women for further management.
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.