ArticleCancers2024
Concomitant Cervical and Anal Screening for Human Papilloma Virus (HPV): Worth the Effort or a Waste of Time?
Article in Cancers, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study represents a follow-up analysis of the
methodsThis prospective, cross-sectional, single-center study recruited women for concomitant cervical and anal screening of HPV genotypes and cytology during a single appointment. All women with findings of either HPV or any type of dysplastic lesions on anal smears were offered follow-up in a specialized high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) outpatient clinic, representing the study cohort for this follow-up study.
resultsOverall, 275 patients (mean age 42 ± 12) were included. Among them, 102 (37%) had cervical high-risk (HR) HPV. In total, HPV was (incidentally) revealed in 91 patients (33%) on anal smears, while any degree of anal squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) was found in 30 patients (11%), 6 if which were high-grade SIL (H-SIL). Furthermore, 10 out of 19 biopsies were positive (3 H-SIL lesions). Only half (48/91, 53%) of the women agreed to undergo the recommended specialized follow-up evaluation. Of them, 18 (38%) were diagnosed with dysplastic lesions (9 low grade (L-SIL) and 9 H-SIL, respectively) on biopsies, while the remaining visits revealed no abnormalities. Multivariable analysis revealed cervical HR-HPV infection (OR 4, 95% CI 2.2-7.5) and anal intercourse (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.7-5.9) as independent risk factors for anal HR-HPV infection.
conclusionsClose follow-up of these women is hence strongly recommended.
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.