ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2025
Assessment of the Real-Time Photoelectric Detection Device (TruScreen) in Screening for Cervical Precancerous Lesions in Middle-Aged Women: An Observational Study.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a real-time photoelectric element (TruScreen) for identifying cervical precancerous lesions in middle-aged women. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data collected from 100 women aged 25-55 years who underwent colposcopy at Beijing Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital between June and July 2018. We obtained the results of the ThinPrep cytologic test/HPV tests and TruScreen tests conducted before colposcopy as well as the histopathological results from postoperative multi-site biopsies. Patients were divided into two groups based on histopathological findings: CIN II or higher, and CIN I. We analyzed the diagnostic efficacy of different testing methods, alone and in combination, for cervical precancerous lesions. Results: TruScreen demonstrated good specificity (74.4%) and sensitivity (86.4%) for detecting CIN II or higher lesions, superior to those of TCT alone (sensitivity, 81.8%; specificity, 38.2%) and HPV testing alone (sensitivity, 81.8%; specificity, 28.2%). When different testing methods were combined, the sensitivity of TCT+HR-HPV, TruScreen+HR-HPV, and TruScreen+HR-HPV+TCT reached 100%, while the highest specificity was observed with TruScreen+HR-HPV (25.6%). Conclusion: TruScreen showed high accuracy and specificity for screening cervical precancerous lesions in middle-aged women. The sensitivity and specificity can be improved when combined with HR-HPV test and TCT test. TruScreen has low sampling requirements for clinicians and does not require laboratory doctors or pathologists equipped with PCR equipment to verify. Given its minimal dependence on medical conditions, TruScreen can be considered a potential supplementary screening tool for cervical precancerous lesions.
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.