ReviewActa cytologica2026
Human Papillomavirus Primary Screening and Collaboration in Quality Assurance Work between Laboratories.
Review in Acta cytologica, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical screening is changing to the use of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as the primary screening test. It is essential that the well-established and critically important systems for quality assurance based on laboratory audits of seemingly negative samples taken before HSIL and cervical cancer are maintained. They provide a means of verifying if the actual screening is effective for the intended purpose. Together with international proficiency panels, audits provide a simple and unambiguous way to evaluate if the screening is adequate. Detailed knowledge of how these systems work and how they are dependent on the genotyping of HPV, biobanking, and screening registries is vital to cytologists and pathologists involved in quality assurance work and follow-up of cervical lesions and cervical cancer. Interpretation and communication of outcome and results are equally important for successful quality assurance work and should ideally be done together with expertise in HPV. SUMMARY: The internationally defined procedures for laboratory audit, similar to those used for cytology, require sensitivities before HSIL of >95% and before invasive cervical cancer of >90%. If also results on blinded proficiency panels and international criteria for analytic sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility are achieved, the HPV screening test can be said to be adequate. KEY MESSAGES: Performance of HPV screening tests in a cervical screening program includes similar laboratory audits as hitherto used for cytology. Similarly, technical proficiency of a laboratory is established using blinded proficiency panels with defined contents of virus. Detailed knowledge of quality assurance work is necessary for cytologists and pathologists. Communication of outcome and results depends on collaboration between laboratories.
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.