ReviewJournal of family medicine and primary care2025
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of visual inspection of cervix with acetic acid as a screening tool to detect preinvasive cervical cancer - A meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 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
This meta-analysis was done to estimate the efficacy of visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid (VIA) to screen for the preinvasive stage of carcinoma cervix. This study was done using the PROSPERO database bearing registration number CRD 42023398248. Two researchers independently viewed databases and search engines using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar systematically from the inception until December 2022 for the search paper in the English language related to VIA as a screening method for carcinoma cervix. A random effect model was used to determine pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence interval (CI). All the statistical analyses were conducted in the software STATA version 13. This article includes 21 studies. We observed a clinically acceptable pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.71 to 0.87) and a pooled specificity of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.88). The discriminatory power of VIA was also acceptable, with a summary receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.87 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.90). Findings of current studies also noted the good likelihood ratio of the VIA test for increasing pretest probability to post-test probability. Our study did not notice significant publication bias (
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.