The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Liquid Compared With Conventional Cervical Cytology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare test performance characteristics of conventional Pap tests and liquid-based cervical cytology samples. DATA SOURCES: Eligible studies, published between 1991 and 2007, were retrieved through PubMed/EmBase searching and completed by consultation of other sources. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Studies were selected if a conventional and a liquid-based sample were prepared from the same woman or when one or the other type of sample was taken from a separate but similar cohort. The current systematic review and meta-analysis is restricted to studies where all subjects were submitted to gold standard verification, based on colposcopy and histology of colposcopy-targeted biopsies, allowing computation of absolute and relative test validity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse. Randomized trials were selected as well if all test-positive cases were verified with the same gold standard, allowing computation of the relative sensitivity. Impact of study characteristics on accuracy was assessed by subgroup meta-analyses, meta-regression, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve regression. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: The relative sensitivity, pooled from eight studies, with complete gold standard verification and from one randomized clinical trial, did not differ significantly from unity. Also, the specificity, considering high-grade and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions as cutoff, was similar in conventional and liquid cytology. However, a lower pooled specificity was found for liquid-based cytology when presence of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance was the cutoff (ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.84-0.98). Differences in study characteristics did not explain interstudy heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Liquid-based cervical cytology is neither more sensitive nor more specific for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia compared with the conventional Pap test.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1986) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1177013815 · Cited by 6,033
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2261021292 · Cited by 3,215
Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias
Begg, C. B., & Greenes, R. A. (1983) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530820 · Cited by 708
Cited by
Saslow, D., Solomon, D., Lawson, H. W., Killackey, M., Kulasingam, S. L., Cain, J. M., Garcia, F. A. R., Moriarty, A. T., Waxman, A. G., Wilbur, D. C., et al. (2012) · Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease · doi:10.1097/lgt.0b013e31824ca9d5 · Cited by 915
Kitchener, H. C., Almonte, M., Thomson, C., Wheeler, P., Sargent, A., Stoykova, B., Gilham, C., Baysson, H., Roberts, C., Dowie, R., et al. (2009) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70156-1 · Cited by 388
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 · Cited by 323
Self-citationNaucler, P., Ryd, W., Tornberg, S., Strand, A., Wadell, G., Elfgren, K., Radberg, T., Strander, B., Forslund, O., Hansson, B.-G., et al. (2009) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djn444 · Cited by 287
Somatic LKB1 Mutations Promote Cervical Cancer Progression
Wingo, S. N., Gallardo, T. D., Akbay, E. A., Liang, M.-C., Contreras, C. M., Boren, T., Shimamura, T., Miller, D. S., Sharpless, N. E., Bardeesy, N., et al. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005137 · Cited by 247
Metadata
- Authors
- Arbyn, M., Bergeron, C., Klinkhamer, P., Martin-Hirsch, P., Siebers, A. G., & Bulten, J.
- Venue
- Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 167-177
- ISSN
- 0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2126303721
- Cited by
- 443
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 28.25
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Liquid Compared With Conventional Cervical Cytology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.aog.0000296488.85807.b3
- The paper
- Arbyn, M., Bergeron, C., Klinkhamer, P., Martin-Hirsch, P., Siebers, A. G., & Bulten, J. (2008). Liquid Compared With Conventional Cervical Cytology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000296488.85807.b3
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.
