Comparative accuracy of cervical cancer screening strategies in healthy asymptomatic women: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Terasawa T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8741996 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate outcomes of treatment strategies for asymptomatic carotid disease. We searched electronic bibliographic sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL) to identify randomised controlled trials (RCT) reporting comparative outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid stenting (CAS) and best medical therapy (BMT) in asymptomatic carotid disease. We performed pairwise meta-analysis applying random or fixed-effects models and reported the results as the odds ratio (OR) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We also performed a network meta-analysis and obtained a hierarchy of the competing interventions using rankograms and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and mean ranks. Stroke and death within 30 days and during follow up were the primary outcome endpoints. Eleven RCTs were identified reporting a total of 8,954 patients. Compared to BMT, CEA reduces the odds of long-term mortality (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43, 1.12) and ipsilateral stroke (OR 0.59 95% CI 0.50, 0.71). Network meta-analyses league table demonstrated that BMT is superior to CEA and CAS in terms of perioperative stroke risk and mortality. CEA is the preferred method to reduce the long-term risk of ipsilateral stroke and mortality for patients with asymptomatic carotid disease.
| S-EPMC5849752 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7971880 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The switch from primary cytology to primary high risk papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing for cervical screening is now being implemented in a number of countries. The advantages of this are to increase screening sensitivity which will save lives, and at the same time to extend screening intervals. The challenge with HR-HPV testing is its relatively poor specificity which means identifying a large number of women who are HR-HPV positive with negative cytology. One way of tackling this is to use early recall, in order to select referral to colposcopy to those women who do not clear the virus over a period of 1-2 years, as done in the recently published English Pilot Study. Another challenge in optimising screening is to recognise that wide coverage with prophylactic vaccination will require fewer screens over the lifetime of vaccinated women to maintain cost-effectiveness. HR-HPV testing allows self sampling which could both encourage more women to be screened and be more convenient for those who do wish to be screened. Cervical cancer prevention which combines vaccination and screening now offers a future in which cervical cancer could become a rarity, but efficient strategies need to be implemented.
| S-EPMC6522633 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe accuracy of screening for anal cancer precursors relative to screening for cervical cancer precursors has not been systematically examined. The aim of the current meta-analysis was to compare the relative accuracy of anal cytology to cervical cytology in discriminating between histopathologic high grade and lesser grades of dysplasia when the reference standard biopsy is obtained using colposcope magnification.Methods and findingsThe outcome metric of discrimination was the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve area. Random effects meta-analysis of eligible studies was performed with examination of sources of heterogeneity that included QUADAS criteria and selected covariates, in meta-regression models. Thirty three cervical and eleven anal screening studies were found to be eligible. The primary meta-analytic comparison suggested that anal cytologic screening is somewhat less discriminating than cervical cytologic screening (ROC area [95% confidence interval (C.I.)]: 0.834 [0.809-0.859] vs. 0.700 [0.664-0.735] for cervical and anal screening, respectively). This finding was robust when examined in meta-regression models of covariates differentially distributed by screening setting (anal, cervical).ConclusionsAnal cytologic screening is somewhat less discriminating than cervical cytologic screening. Heterogeneity of estimates within each screening setting suggests that other factors influence estimates of screening accuracy. Among these are sampling and interpretation errors involving both cytology and biopsy as well as operator skill and experience.
| S-EPMC3176293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess and compare the accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), visual inspection with Lugol's iodine (VILI), and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as alternative standalone methods for primary cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.Data sourcesSystematic searches of multiple databases including Medline, Embase, and Scopus for studies published between January 1994 and June 2014.Review methodsInclusion criteria for studies were: alternative methods to cytology used as a standalone test for primary screening; study population not at particular risk of cervical cancer (excluding studies focusing on HIV positive women or women with gynaecological symptoms); women screened by nurses; reference test (colposcopy and directed biopsies) performed at least in women with positive screening results. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data for inclusion, and evaluated study quality using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2) checklist. Primary outcomes were absolute accuracy measures (sensitivity and specificity) of screening tests to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+).Results15 studies of moderate quality were included (n=61,381 for VIA, n=46,435 for VILI, n=11,322 for HPV testing). Prevalence of CIN2+ did not vary by screening test and ranged from 2.3% (95% confidence interval 1.5% to 3.3%) in VILI studies to 4.9% (2.7% to 7.8%) in HPV testing studies. Positivity rates of VILI, VIA, and HPV testing were 16.5% (9.8% to 24.7%), 16.8% (11.0% to 23.6%), and 25.8% (17.4% to 35.3%), respectively. Pooled sensitivity was higher for VILI (95.1%; 90.1% to 97.7%) than VIA (82.4%; 76.3% to 87.3%) in studies where the reference test was performed in all women (P<0.001). Pooled specificity of VILI and VIA were similar (87.2% (78.1% to 92.8%) v 87.4% (77.1% to 93.4%); P=0.85). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were similar for HPV testing versus VIA (both P ≥ 0.23) and versus VILI (both P ≥ 0.16). Accuracy of VIA and VILI increased with sample size and time period.ConclusionsFor primary screening of cervical cancer in sub-Saharan Africa, VILI is a simple and affordable alternative to cytology that demonstrates higher sensitivity than VIA. Implementation studies are needed to assess the effect of these screening strategies on the incidence and outcomes of cervical cancer in the region.
| S-EPMC4490835 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. We conducted network meta-regression within a Bayesian framework to compare and rank different treatment strategies for HCC through direct and indirect evidence from international studies. METHODS AND ANALYSES:We pooled the OR for 1-year, 3-year and 5-year overall survival, based on lesions of size ? 3?cm, 3-5?cm and ?5?cm, using five therapeutic options including resection (RES), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation (TACE) plus RFA (TR) and percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI). RESULTS:We identified 74 studies, including 26?944 patients. After adjustment for study design, and in the full sample of studies, the treatments were ranked in order of greatest to least benefit as follows for 5?year survival: (1) RES, (2) TR, (3) RFA, (4) MWA and (5) PEI. The ranks were similar for 1- and 3-year survival, with RES and TR being the highest ranking treatments. In both smaller (<3?cm) and larger tumours (3-5?cm), RES and TR were also the two highest ranking treatments. There was little evidence of inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence. CONCLUSION:The comparison of different treatment strategies for HCC indicated that RES is associated with longer survival. However, many of the between-treatment comparisons were not statistically significant and, for now, selection of strategies for treatment will depend on patient and disease characteristics. Additionally, much of the evidence was provided by non-randomised studies and knowledge gaps still exist. More head-to-head comparisons between both RES and TR, or other approaches, will be necessary to confirm these findings.
| S-EPMC6196801 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical performance of liquid-based cytology (LBC), HPV tests and visual inspections with acetic acid or Lugol's iodine (VIA/VILI) as primary screening and triage strategies among Chinese women living with HIV (WLHIV).MethodsWLHIV aged 18 years and older were recruited from HIV/AIDS treatment clinic in Yunnan, China from 2019 to 2020. Women were screened with self- and physician-sampling for HPV tests, LBC, and VIA/VILI. Women positive for any HPV or with cytological abnormalities were recalled for colposcopy examination and biopsy when necessary. Clinical performance of primary and triage strategies for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) was evaluated.ResultsFor primary screening, sensitivity of physician-HPV tests was 100%, 89.5%, and 100% for hybrid capture 2 (HC2), cobas, and Sansure HPV, and specificity was 80.4%, 85.1%, and 72.0%, respectively. Self-HPV test achieved considerable performance with physician-HPV. Sensitivity and specificity were 61.1% and 96.3% for LBC (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse [ASCUS+]), 40.0% and 77.3% for VIA/VILI. For triaging HPV-positive women, LBC (ASCUS+), HPV-16/18 genotyping, and VIA/VILI-elevated specificity with sensitivity declined 30%-50% compared with HPV screening alone. Restricted HPV genotyping triage (HPV-16/18/31/33/45/52/58) demonstrated the optimal accuracy (89.5% sensitivity, 81.9% specificity), and was similar to HPV-16/18 with reflex LBC (ASCUS+). Combination antiretroviral therapies (cARTs) <2 years were associated with decreased specificity of HC2 (aOR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.22-3.91) and Sansure HPV (2.48, 1.43-4.29).ConclusionsSelf-HPV with restricted genotyping triage is highly recommended for cervical cancer screening for WLHIV in China. Feasible triage to increase HPV specificity among women with short duration of cART is needed.
| S-EPMC8419757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceUniversal developmental screening is widely recommended, yet studies of the accuracy of commonly used questionnaires reveal mixed results, and previous comparisons of these questionnaires are hampered by important methodological differences across studies.ObjectiveTo compare the accuracy of 3 developmental screening instruments as standardized tests of developmental status.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study recruited consecutive parents in waiting rooms at 10 pediatric primary care offices in eastern Massachusetts between October 1, 2013, and January 31, 2017. Parents were included if they were sufficiently literate in the English or Spanish language to complete a packet of screening questionnaires and if their child was of eligible age. Parents completed all questionnaires in counterbalanced order. Participants who screened positive on any questionnaire plus 10% of those who screened negative on all questionnaires (chosen at random) were invited to complete developmental testing. Analyses were weighted for sampling and nonresponse and were conducted from October 1, 2013, to January 31, 2017.ExposuresThe 3 screening instruments used were the Ages & Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition (ASQ-3); Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS); and Survey of Well-being of Young Children (SWYC): Milestones.Main outcomes and measuresReference tests administered were Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition, for children aged 0 to 42 months, and Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition, for older children. Age-standardized scores were used as indicators of mild (80-89), moderate (70-79), or severe (<70) delays.ResultsA total of 1495 families of children aged 9 months to 5.5 years participated. The mean (SD) age of the children at enrollment was 2.6 (1.3) years, and 779 (52.1%) were male. Parent respondents were primarily female (1325 [88.7%]), with a mean (SD) age of 33.4 (6.3) years. Of the 20.5% to 29.0% of children with a positive score on each questionnaire, 35% to 60% also received a positive score on a second questionnaire, demonstrating moderate co-occurrence. Among younger children (<42 months), the specificity of the ASQ-3 (89.4%; 95% CI, 85.9%-92.1%) and SWYC Milestones (89.0%; 95% CI, 86.1%-91.4%) was higher than that of the PEDS (79.6%; 95% CI, 75.7%-83.1%; P?<?.001 and P?=?.002, respectively), but differences in sensitivity were not statistically significant. Among older children (43-66 months), specificity of the ASQ-3 (92.1%; 95% CI, 85.1%-95.9%) was higher than that of the SWYC Milestones (70.7%; 95% CI, 60.9%-78.8%) and the PEDS (73.7%; 95% CI, 64.3%-81.3%; P?<?.001), but sensitivity to mild delays of the SWYC Milestones (54.8%; 95% CI, 38.1%-70.4%) and of the PEDS (61.8%; 95% CI, 43.1%-77.5%) was higher than that of the ASQ-3 (23.5%; 95% CI, 9.0%-48.8%; P?=?.012 and P?=?.002, respectively). Sensitivity exceeded 70% only with respect to severe delays, with 73.7% (95% CI, 50.1%-88.6%) for the SWYC Milestones among younger children, 78.9% (95% CI, 55.4%-91.9%) for the PEDS among younger children, and 77.8% (95% CI, 41.8%-94.5%) for the PEDS among older children. Attending to parents' concerns was associated with increased sensitivity of all questionnaires.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that 3 frequently used screening questionnaires offer adequate specificity but modest sensitivity for detecting developmental delays among children aged 9 months to 5 years. The results suggest that trade-offs in sensitivity and specificity occurred among the questionnaires, with no one questionnaire emerging superior overall.
| S-EPMC7042946 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWomen with a history of incarceration bear a disproportionate burden of cervical disease and have special characteristics that affect their intent and/or ability to adhere to cervical screening and follow-up recommendations. The goal of this study was to identify factors associated with cervical cancer screening and screening outcomes among incarcerated women.MethodsWe applied a framework of predisposing factors, enabling factors and population-specific characteristics that could impact screening behaviors and outcomes for this population. We used bivariate chi-square tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to analyze data previously collected from 290 incarcerated women.ResultsCervical cancer screening belief score, as a predisposing factor, was associated with women who had an up-to-date Pap test and who had a cervical cancer diagnosis ever in their life. Both a sexual history containing high-risk behaviors and a history of abuse, population-specific factors, were each associated with having had an abnormal pap; mental health, incarceration, and substance use histories were each associated with having a diagnosis of cervical cancer.ConclusionsThe significant differences in outcomes for these population-specific factors suggest the need for a health services approach that addresses the challenges to the cervical cancer preventive health needs of incarcerated women.Implications for practiceProviders working with vulnerable populations such as women who have been incarcerated should be aware that their risk histories have an influence on their follow-up behaviors. These women will need extra support for cervical cancer screening and follow-up care.
| S-EPMC6019745 | biostudies-literature
Project description: To compare the effectiveness of alternative first line treatment options for women with WHO group II anovulation wishing to conceive. Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, and Embase, up to 11 April 2016. Randomised controlled trials comparing eight ovulation induction treatments in women with WHO group II anovulation: clomiphene, letrozole, metformin, clomiphene and metformin combined, tamoxifen, gonadotropins, laparoscopic ovarian drilling, and placebo or no treatment. Study quality was measured on the basis of the methodology and categories described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. Pregnancy, defined preferably as clinical pregnancy, was the primary outcome; live birth, ovulation, miscarriage, and multiple pregnancy were secondary outcomes. Of 2631 titles and abstracts initially identified, 57 trials reporting on 8082 women were included. All pharmacological treatments were superior to placebo or no intervention in terms of pregnancy and ovulation. Compared with clomiphene alone, both letrozole and the combination of clomiphene and metformin showed higher pregnancy rates (odds ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 2.00; 1.81, 1.35 to 2.42; respectively) and ovulation rates (1.99, 1.38 to 2.87; 1.55, 1.02 to 2.36; respectively). Letrozole led to higher live birth rates when compared with clomiphene alone (1.67, 1.11 to 2.49). Both letrozole and metformin led to lower multiple pregnancy rates compared with clomiphene alone (0.46, 0.23 to 0.92; 0.22, 0.05 to 0.92; respectively). In women with WHO group II anovulation, letrozole and the combination of clomiphene and metformin are superior to clomiphene alone in terms of ovulation and pregnancy. Compared with clomiphene alone, letrozole is the only treatment showing a significantly higher rate of live birth. PROSPERO CRD42015027579.
| S-EPMC5421445 | biostudies-other