ArticleThe oncologist2025
Risk assessment in a Chinese cohort of 96 318 females undergoing opportunistic cervical cancer screening.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. 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.
- A Competing-Risks Approach to the Progression, Regression and Persistence of High-Grade Cervical Dysplasia in Patients over 30 Years Old-A Prospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess CIN3+ risk in a Chinese cohort of outpatients undergoing contesting screening and to evaluate the portability of the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) risk-based management, which was primarily developed using data from the Kaiser Permanente of Northern California (KPNC) cohort.
methodsFemales aged 25-65 years who were screened with cytology and high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) co-testing between 2011 and 2020 at Wuhan Union Hospital (WHUH) were retrospectively studied. The risks of immediate and 3-year CIN3+ were estimated via prevalence-incidence mixture models. Portability was evaluated via the ratio of the observation risk in the WHUH cohort to the expected risk in the KPNC cohort (O/E) and its 95% CI.
resultsA total of 96 318 females were included, and 16.83% of the women tested hrHPV-positive at initial screening, who had a CIN3+ immediate risk of 14.14%. The CIN3+ immediate risk varied between subgroups of positive HPV16 (34.09%), HPV18 (13.38%), other HPV types (6.71%), and negative hrHPV (0.12%). Compared to the KPNC cohort, our cohort exhibited a significantly higher CIN3+ immediate risk (1.42% vs 0.46%; O/E, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.92-3.26) and disproportionately increased cancer immediate risks in most subgroups requiring immediate colposcopy or treatment, as well as higher 3-year CIN3+ risks in women with hrHPV-negative ASC-US/NILM. Yet, the action threshold suggested by ASCCP, a CIN3+ immediate risk of 4%, showed good portability to our cohort.
conclusionsDespite the higher risks in our cohort, the ASCCP clinical action threshold remains portable. For women with minimal abnormalities or normal results, shortened follow-up intervals should be considered.
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.