ArticleNature communications2025
Age-specific clinical performance of HPV-based vs. cytology-based cervical cancer screening in China.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive modeling for cervical cancer: existing AI approaches and the emerging role of vaginal microbiome.Frontiers in network physiology · 2026Article
- Genetically Predicted Gene Expression and Circulating Metabolites Associated with Cervical High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion: A Mendelian Randomization Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Prediction for the Therapeutic Efficacy of Topical Nocardia Rubra Cell Wall Skeleton Human Papillomavirus Infection: A Retrospective Study.Infection and drug resistance · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical cancer remains a significant health burden, and effective screening is essential, yet the age-specific performance of HPV primary screening is rarely studied. This multicenter study evaluates age-specific performance of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as cross-sectional and longitudinal screening for cervical cancer among 28,501 Chinese women. At baseline, HPV screening with cytology triage demonstrates higher sensitivity (96.9% vs. 79.7%) but slightly lower specificity (88.8% vs. 92.7%) than cytology with HPV triage for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). HPV sensitivities remain high across age groups (≤35: 100.0%; 36-45: 96.4%; >45: 96.8%), consistently exceeding the corresponding cytology sensitivities (66.7%, 75.7%, and 84.9%). Over a three-year follow-up, HPV screening maintains superior sensitivity (93.1% vs. 58.1%) and slightly lower specificity (89.6% vs. 92.4%) compared with cytology. Age-stratified analyses in the longitudinal setting reveal trends similar to those observed in the cross-sectional analyses. Women positive for HPV16/18 have a 43.0% three-year risk of CIN2+, compared with 0.2% for HPV-negative women. These findings support the durable protection of HPV-based screening and the feasibility of extending screening intervals.
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.