ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Comparative study of triage strategies for women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in the post-vaccine era.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The research focused on a comparative analysis of triage strategies for women with Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance (ASC-US) before and after receiving the HPV vaccine, aiming to optimize cervical cancer prevention strategies, especially in resource-limited healthcare settings. Materials and methods: Between September 2018 and December 2023, 7,511 women aged 21 years or older who underwent liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer screening were recruited. Women diagnosed with ASC-US were included in the study. All participants underwent HPV testing and liquid-based cytology examination, and those with abnormal results were referred for colposcopy. Women with abnormal colposcopy findings underwent further histopathological examination. The gold standard for diagnosis was pathological, with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) on histology as the endpoints. In the final analysis, 933 women with ASC-US were enrolled as the unvaccinated group, with 179 of them testing positive for HPV 16/18. Assuming that all women would receive the bivalent vaccine targeting HPV 16/18 in the post-vaccine era, and given that the vaccine protection rate is 100% against HPV 16/18, then 754 women excluding those of HPV 16/18 positive would comprise the vaccinated group. Results: In the unvaccinated group, the overall HPV positivity rate was 59.27% among ASC-US women, with a 100% HPV prevalence rate among those with CIN2+ lesions. The combination genotyping model of HPV16/18 showed the highest specificity (81.77%) and the lowest referral rate (32.37%). In the vaccinated group, the HPV positivity rate was 49.61% among ASC-US women, with a 100% HPV prevalence rate among those with CIN2+ lesions. The specificity of HPV33/58 was the highest (86.99%), and the colposcopy referral rate was lowest (27.54%), with statistical significance. Sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were not statistically significant. Conclusion: HPV16/18 demonstrated a more efficacious triaging effect in the unvaccinated group. HPV33/58 will potentially replace HPV16/18 as the priority screening genotyping among vaccinated populations.
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.