ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2026
Nurse-led visual triage against histopathology in a real-world low-resource setting cervical cancer prevention program.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the histopathological reports from excision treatment and biopsy to identify the proportion of CIN2 + among a cohort of women who had abnormal cervical cancer visual screening reports in Cameroon and to identify potential risk factors for CIN2 + . Methods: This was a cross-sectional study using secondary data from women with abnormal cervical cancer visual screening who provided tissue through excision treatment/biopsy between 2007-2023 in Cameroon. The program nurses provided a presumptive pathologic diagnosis which was compared with the final pathologic diagnosis. We described baseline characteristics by estimating means, standard deviations (SD), counts, and percentages for continuous and categorical variables, as appropriate. T-tests and chi square tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively, between women with CIN2 + and women without CIN2 + . Results: Of the 1,294 women with abnormal visual results, 930 (71.9%) had CIN2 + while 364 (28.1%) had no CIN2 + . Of the 724 women with lesions suspicious for Invasive Cervical Cancer (ICC), 545 (75.3%) had ICC while 53 (7.3%) had CIN3. Of the 227 women who had excision treatment, 70 (30.8%) had CIN3, followed by 53 (23.4%) with CIN2. Though the agreement between nurses' presumptive pathological diagnosis and final pathological diagnosis was fair (0.356), there was a lower level of agreement for CIN2(kappa = 0.180). Conclusion: The proportion of CIN2 + among these women with abnormal visual results was over 70%. Age, HIV status, and visual screening results were strong clinical predictors for CIN2 + . Nurse-led triage showed good reliability in identifying ICC but poor for CIN2.
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.