Observational studyBMC women's health2025
Cervical cancer screening: a comparative study of TruScreen vs. Pap Smear.
Observational study in BMC women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers to Accessing Cervical Cancer Screening and Treatment in the Amazon Region-A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A study of Pap smear abnormalities in asymptomatic women attending a tertiary care hospital.Bioinformation · 2026Article
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
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the potential of real-time optoelectronic device (TruScreen™; TS; TruScreen Group Limited, New Zealand) as an alternative or adjunct to Pap Smear (Liquid Based Cytology (LBC)) for cervical cancer screening.
methodWe conducted a prospective observational pilot study involving 507 women who were routinely followed at gynecology clinics. All participants underwent TS and LBC examinations after study enrolment. Those with abnormal findings were referred for colposcopy and cervical biopsy within one month.
resultsOverall, 507 women fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in this study, of which 30 women (5.9%) had abnormal TS findings and underwent colposcopy. Thirteen women (43.3%) had low-grade lesions, and only one (3.3%) had a high-grade lesion. Regarding biopsy findings, three women had cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1, two women had 'CIN2 + , and one had glandular hyperplasia. The TS yielded a sensitivity of 83.3% (95% CI: 35.9-99.6%) and a specificity of 95% (95% CI: 92.7- 96.8%) for the detection of cervical abnormality, compared to 66.7% (95% CI: 22.3-95.7%) and 98.2% (95%: CI 96.6%-99.2%) of the Pap smear, respectively. The difference between both screening tools was not statistically significant (p = 0.91). The sensitivity (100%, 95% CI 15.6-100%) and specificity (95.6%, 95% CI 93.4-97.2%) of TS and Pap smear for 'CIN2 + lesions were notably high.
conclusionTS demonstrated potential as a screening tool for cervical neoplasms in this preliminary study. The tool did not require cervical samples, laboratory equipment, or highly trained personnel. While our findings suggest the potential for real-time and accurate screening, further research with a larger sample size is necessary to confirm its reliability and practicality.
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.