A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Cervicouterine Cancer Screening - TruScreen™ vs. Conventional Cytology: Pilot Study. | LitMetric

Introduction: Cervicouterine cancer (CC) is a health problem worldwide and is the fourth most common cancer in women, with a greater proportion of individuals affected by advanced stages of the disease in developing countries.

Objective: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the TruScreen™ opto-electronic device vs. conventional cytology in CC screenings.

Methodology: This is a prospective observational study that included individuals who presented for the first time at the Dysplasia Clinic of the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología from March 1 through April 30, 2016, and those referred due to abnormal conventional cytology. The patients were evaluated with the TruScreen™ device, conventional cytology, colposcopy and, if necessary, cervical biopsy. The results were analyzed by descriptive statistics as well as the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the TruScreen™, using conventional cytology as the standard.

Results: Thirty-two patients were included who met the inclusion criteria. The average age of the patients was 40 years (range, 23-61 years). For the diagnosis of high-grade intraepithelial lesions, the TruScreen™ device showed a 43% sensitivity, a 92% specificity, a PPV of 60%, and a NPV of 85%, whereas evaluation via cervical biopsy exhibited a 33% sensitivity, an 86% specificity, a 33% PPV, and an 86% NPV. The Kappa agreement index of the TruScreen™ with the colposcopies was 0.70.

Conclusions: TruScreen™ demonstrated low sensitivity and high specificity compared with conventional cytology, which had a high NPV.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6060572PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

conventional cytology
24
cervicouterine cancer
8
truscreen™ conventional
8
sensitivity specificity
8
device conventional
8
truscreen™ device
8
cervical biopsy
8
truscreen™
7
conventional
6
cytology
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!