ArticleJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2026
Comparison of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology in the detection of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Cervical Cancer.
Article in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the performance of conventional Pap smear and liquid-based cytology (LBC) in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cervical cancer using colposcopic-guided biopsies as the gold standard. Methods: All women between 21 and 65 years of age were included and screened using both the conventional method and LBC. All screen positive patients further underwent colposcopy-directed biopsies. 10% of screen negative were included as controls. Sensitivity and specificity of both the methods were calculated and compared. Results: For low-grade cytology (ASCUS and higher grade) and low-grade histopathology (CIN1 and higher grade), conventional Pap smear had a higher specificity of 85.8% versus 73% of LBC. LBC had higher sensitivity of 100% versus 75% of conventional Pap smear. However, when high-grade cytology (ASC-H and higher grade) and high-grade histopathology (CIN2 and higher grade) were compared, LBC had better performance with a sensitivity of 100% versus 14.2% for the conventional method and accuracy of 96.6% versus 91.1%. Another advantage of LBC was in the reduction of number of unsatisfactory smears for evaluation. There was no unsatisfactory smear on LBC as compared to the conventional method which had 14% unsatisfactory smears. Conclusion: Thus, for detection of high-grade lesions which are at increased risk of progression to cancer, LBC fares better in comparison with the conventional method. It has a better sensitivity, accuracy and fewer number of unsatisfactory smears.
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.