ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2026
Comparison of Ex-House and In-House Cytology for the New Cervical Cancer Screening Assessment.
Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The introduction of an organized cervical cancer screening program in Germany in 2020 changed screening algorithms and referral patterns, increasing the number of patients referred to specialized centers. This study examines the concordance between ex-house Pap smear findings and in-house colposcopy-guided cytology and relates both to colposcopy-guided biopsy and histopathological outcomes within the new screening program. Methods: In this retrospective study, data from 3161 patients referred for colposcopy to a certified university dysplasia unit between January 2020 and May 2024 were analyzed. All patients underwent standardized assessment including Pap smear, HPV testing, colposcopy, and colposcopy-guided biopsy, with surgical treatment when indicated. Results: Concordance between ex-house and in-house cytology was moderate (Spearman's ρ = 0.453, p < 0.001; weighted Cohen's κ = 0.581). Compared with histology, ex-house cytology showed overdiagnosis in 252 cases (14.29%), underdiagnosis in 631 cases (35.79%), and concordant findings in 880 cases (49.91%). In contrast, in-house cytology demonstrated lower rates of overdiagnosis (183 cases, 9.48%) and underdiagnosis (495 cases, 25.65%), with agreement in 1252 cases (64.87%). HPV positivity increased with cytological severity, with HPV16 being the most prevalent genotype in high-grade lesions. Among low-grade cytological findings, CIN3+ yield differed markedly according to HPV status. Conclusion: In the setting of the cervical cancer screening program, in-house cytology performed in a specialized dysplasia unit demonstrated closer agreement with histology than ex-house cytology. HPV status emerged as a key modifier of risk within low-grade cytological categories, highlighting the importance of risk-adapted triage and reassessment colposcopy in contemporary screening practice.
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.