ArticleHealth science reports2026
Comparative Performance of Pap Smear and Colposcopy in Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women With Abnormal Cervical Findings in Central India: A Prospective Observational Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer remains a leading cause of death among women worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of Pap smear and colposcopy in detecting cervical abnormalities in women with unhealthy cervices and correlate findings with biopsy results. Methods: A prospective observational comparative study was conducted from July 2018 to December 2020. Women with abnormal cervical appearances or symptoms were enrolled. Each participant underwent a Pap smear followed by colposcopy, and cervical punch biopsies were performed on those with abnormal findings. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy were calculated for both methods, using biopsy results as the gold standard. Results: Of the 82 participants, 74% were from rural areas, and the majority belonged to the lower-middle socioeconomic class. Pap smear had a sensitivity of 77.14%, specificity of 63.64%, PPV of 87.1%, and NPV of 46.67%. Colposcopy showed a higher sensitivity of 90.91% but lower specificity of 37.5%, with a PPV of 85.71%. Diagnostic accuracy was 73.91% for Pap smear and 80.49% for colposcopy. Both methods were significantly associated with biopsy-confirmed findings of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and invasive cancer. Conclusion: Pap smear and colposcopy are valuable screening tools, but their limitations underscore the need for supplemental diagnostic methods like biopsy, particularly in cases with abnormal findings. In low-resource settings, innovative strategies such as "screen-and-treat" approaches should be considered to overcome barriers like follow-up challenges and false-negative rates, improving cervical cancer detection and prevention.
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.