ArticleCommunications medicine2026
Minimal benefit of co-testing over HPV primary screening with cytology triage from resource-limited settings in China.
Article in Communications medicine, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCo-testing with human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing plus liquid-based cytology is still used in parts of China, although many screening programmes are moving toward HPV-based strategies. We aimed to compare co-testing with HPV-based and cytology-only approaches in routine county services in resource-limited areas.
methodsWe analysed a screening cohort of 33,387 women aged 35-64 years from four primary care sites. Because all women received both HPV testing and cytology, we reconstructed four strategies within the same population: co-testing, HPV primary screening with cytology triage, HPV-only, and cytology-only. For each strategy we estimated detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2 + ), referrals for specialist examination of the cervix, and cytology workload per 1000 women screened.
resultsHere we show that co-testing detects 6.7 CIN2+ cases per 1000 women screened, compared with 6.5 for HPV primary screening with cytology triage, 4.3 for HPV-only, and 4.9 for cytology-only. However, co-testing requires more resources than HPV primary screening with cytology triage, including 33.1 additional colposcopy referrals and 888.8 extra cytology slides per 1,000 women screened, with little gain in detection. Cytology-only increases referrals while detecting fewer CIN2+ cases, whereas HPV-only reduces referrals but detects fewer CIN2 + .
conclusionsIn resource-limited county programmes, HPV primary screening with cytology triage provides the most favourable balance between detecting cervical pre-cancer and limiting unnecessary procedures. These findings support transitioning from routine co-testing to HPV-based screening tailored to local capacity.
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.