SynthesisActa cytologica2026
Liquid-Based Cytology in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Acta cytologica, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhile the conventional Papanicolaou (Pap) smear has long been the cornerstone of cervical cancer (CC) screening, it presents well-documented limitations in sample collection, processing, and interpretation. Liquid-based cytology (LBC) was introduced to address these drawbacks by offering more uniform cell samples and enabling standardized evaluation. However, due to ongoing debate and conflicting study results regarding their comparative diagnostic accuracy, a rigorous evidence-based assessment is needed. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of LBC compared to conventional Pap cytology in the detection of cervical precancerous and cancerous lesions.
methodsPubMed and Cochrane Library were systematically searched. Comparative studies of LBC and conventional Pap cytology in primary CC screening were included. Outcomes included unsatisfactory sample rate, abnormal histology-confirmed cytology detection rate (ADR) CIN2+ lesions (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and glandular abnormalities. Random-effects models were used to estimate risk ratios (RRs). A two-sided p value of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.
resultsNinety-seven studies were included. LBC had a lower unsatisfactory sample rate than conventional Pap cytology (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47-0.85, p = 0.003). The detection rate of SCC was similar (RR: 1.77, 95% CI: 0.96-3.26, p = 0.07). The glandular abnormality detection rate showed no overall difference (RR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.75-2.02, p = 0.42), but a subgroup analysis (FDA-approved tests) showed superiority of LBC (RR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.18-1.96, p = 0.001). LBC had a 35% higher abnormal cytology detection rate confirmed by histology (RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.20-1.52, p < 0.0001) and a 27% higher detection of confirmed CIN2+ abnormalities (RR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.11-1.45, p = 0.0006).
conclusionLBC improves CIN2+ and histology-confirmed abnormal detection rates while reducing unsatisfactory samples, supporting its use in CC screening. SCC detection rates were similar. Findings suggest that LBC, particularly when using FDA-approved tests, enhances glandular abnormality detection. Further research should evaluate its cost-effectiveness in low-resource settings.
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.