ArticleHeliyon2025
The application of magnifying endoscopy in the diagnosis of cervical lesions.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess the sensitivity and specificity of magnifying endoscopy in the examination of patients with high-risk factors for cervical lesions. Methods: Two equally skilled colposcopy specialists examined 59 patients admitted to the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University between March 14, 2023, and April 15, 2023. These patients underwent both colposcopy and magnifying endoscopy examinations. Preliminary diagnoses were then made by the two colposcopy specialists using colposcopy and magnifying endoscopy. The sensitivity and specificity of these methods were then evaluated compared to the postoperative pathology diagnosis for a better understanding of their efficacy. Results: Colposcopy exhibited sensitivity rates of 23.08 % for diagnosing normal tissue, 10 % for low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL), 90 % for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL), and 84.62 % for cervical cancer, with specificity rates of 93.94 %, 67.35 %, 71.43 %, and 100 %, respectively. In contrast, magnifying endoscopy demonstrated sensitivity rates of 42.31 %, 40 %, 90 %, and 92.31 % for normal tissue, LSIL, HSIL, and cervical cancer, respectively. The corresponding specificity rates for these categories were 87.88 %, 77.55 %, 83.67 %, and 100 %. Conclusion: Magnifying endoscopy exhibits higher sensitivity and specificity compared to colposcopy in detecting cervical lesions. With the ability to magnify lesions up to 520 times, magnifying endoscopy facilitates precise visualization of cellular-level lesions, as well as associated anatomical features and vascular signals.
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.