Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

p16INK4a immunostaining in cytological and histological specimens from the uterine cervix: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Tsoumpou, I., Arbyn, M., Kyrgiou, M., Wentzensen, N., Koliopoulos, G., Martin-Hirsch, P., Malamou-Mitsi, V., Paraskevaidis, E.·2009·Cancer Treatment Reviews
DOI 10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.10.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background P16INK4a is a biomarker for transforming HPV infections that could act as an adjunct to current cytological and histological assessment of cervical smears and biopsies, allowing the identification of those women with ambiguous results that require referral to colposcopy and potentially treatment. Material and Methods We conducted a systematic review of all studies that evaluated the use of p16INK4a in cytological or histological specimens from the uterine cervix. We also estimated the mean proportion of samples that were positive for p16INK4a in cytology and histology, stratified by the grade of the lesion. Results Sixty-one studies were included. The proportion of cervical smears overexpressing p16INK4a increased with the severity of cytological abnormality. Among normal smears, only 12% (95% CI: 7–17%) were positive for the biomarker compared to 45% of ASCUS and LSIL (95% CI: 35–54% and 37– 57% respectively) and 89% of HSIL smears (95% CI: 84–95%). Similarly, in histology only 2% of normal biopsies (95% CI: 0.4– 30%) and 38% of CIN1 (95% CI: 23– 53%) showed diffuse staining for p16INK4a compared to 68% of CIN2 (95% CI: 44– 92%) and 82% of CIN3 (95% CI: 72– 92%). Conclusion Although there is good evidence that p16INK4a immunostaining correlates with the severity of cytological/histological abnormalities, the reproducibility is limited due to insufficiently standardized interpretation of the immunostaining. Therefore, a consensus needs to be reached regarding the evaluation of p16INK4a staining and the biomarker needs to be evaluated in various clinical settings addressing specific clinical questions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.10.005

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 323

Metadata

Authors
Tsoumpou, I., Arbyn, M., Kyrgiou, M., Wentzensen, N., Koliopoulos, G., Martin-Hirsch, P., Malamou-Mitsi, V., & Paraskevaidis, E.
Venue
Cancer Treatment Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-05
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
210-220
ISSN
0305-7372 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.10.005
OpenAlex
W2115240529
Cited by
323
References
85
FWCI
4.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.