MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2074899208 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0b013e3181e62ec1

The Role of Human Papillomavirus Testing in the Management of Women With Low-Grade Abnormalities: Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial

2010· article· en· W2074899208 sur OpenAlexaff
Seonaidh Cotton, Linda Sharp, Julian Little, Margaret Cruickshank, Rashmi Seth, Lisa Smart, I. D. Duncan, Kirsten Harrild, Keith Neal, Norman Waugh

Notice bibliographique

RevueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésColposcopyMedicineCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaRandomized controlled trialObstetricsGynecologyCervical screeningReferralCervical cancerInternal medicineFamily medicineCancer

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Cytology testing in the NHS Cervical Screening Programs in the United Kingdom has identified over a quarter of a million women with precancerous low-grade abnormalities (mild dyskaryosis or borderline nuclear abnormalities [BNA]). Some investigators have suggested that human papillomavirus (HPV) testing could help decide which of these women should be referred for colposcopy and which could safely be returned to routine recall. This multicenter randomized-controlled trial used data from a previous Trial Of Management of Borderline and Other Low-grade Abnormal smears Group (TOMBOLA) trial to determine whether an HPV test is useful among women with mild dyskaryosis or BNA in the choice between cytological surveillance and colposcopy, and after referral whether HPV testing is useful in choosing treatment (either immediate large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) or biopsy with selective recall. The study subjects were 4439 women, 20 to 59 years of age, with mild dyskaryosis or BNA at enrollment. HPV analysis was performed using the polymerase chain reaction assay with the GP5+/6+ general primer system. Both the study subjects and those involved in management were blinded to the HPV testing results. In the first of 2 randomizations, women were assigned to either cytological surveillance every 6 months or referral for immediate colposcopy. In the second randomization, women referred for colposcopy were assigned either to immediate LLETZ or biopsies with selective recall for LLETZ. Both randomizations were stratified for HPV status and age. In addition, the association between HPV status and the presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or more severe disease (CIN2 or worse) was examined in women who underwent colposcopy. At the end of the 3-year follow-up, all women were invited for an exit examination, which included colposcopy. No significant interactions were found between management and HPV status, showing that HPV positivity among women with low-grade cytologic abnormalities at recruitment was not effective in the choice of immediate colposcopy over cytological surveillance (P = 0.76) or immediate LLETZ over biopsy and recall (P = 0.27). No difference was found between women with mild dyskaryosis and BNA in the sensitivity of a single HPV test in detection of CIN2 or worse, whereas specificity was higher in those with BNA (71.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 68.5%–74.1% vs. 46.9%; 95% CI, 42.2%–51.6%). With increasing age, the sensitivity decreased and the specificity increased. There was a high negative predictive value, especially among women with BNA (94.5%; 95% CI, 92.9%–96.0%). About 22% of women across all ages with CIN2 or worse were HPV negative. Conversely, 40% of HPV positive women did not have CIN. HPV was a more reliable predictor among women aged 40 or more compared with younger women. These findings indicate that a single HPV test may be useful in women over 40 years of age in determining which women with low-grade abnormal cytology should be referred for colposcopy, but may not be useful in women 40 years of age or less, or for determining the most effective management at colposcopy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,424
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,021
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,316
Écart entre enseignants0,286 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveyMême sujetCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchTravaux en français237 207