[ad_1]
Our review summary
A recent "proof in principle" study suggests that low-income females can be used on practical experimental devices to help women with lesser papilloma viruses (HPV) infections. Release can do more to clarify the sensitivity and uniqueness of cancer screening devices. However, this is a good job that needs to be done before you deploy a wide range of measures.
Why these issues
As with the National Cancer Institute, most of all cervical cancers are caused by HPV – most likely due to certain difficulties with HPV. The first diagnosis of HPV infection can help prevent cancer, or warn of cervical cancer by patients and health care providers. This is mainly the screening of HPV, especially for people with limited resources screening or regular access to regular checkups. Communities that are at risk are trying to discuss this subject accurately. It's important to clarify – as this release – that price is a challenge and control restrictions remain. This version needs to be created before the approaches to pragmatic practices and practical steps.
Criteria
Does the costs of the intervention work just enough for the news release?
Silence
This release does not have a pricegat on the HPV screening – including the Test Kit, Analysis, and Follow-up Clinical Visit. However, it goes on to state that "it is necessary to do more and more, as we find ways to make the process of managing more efficient and cost effective." Those writings are adequate enough to get a satisfactory rating.
Are the benefits of treatment / test / product / process worth the news release?
Silence
This is a strategic question because it is not clear how the appropriate benefit should be defined. This article itself sets the goal by evaluating the "validity and acceptability" of the acceptable collection of HPV screening samples for HPV screening. Is it possible to submit a sample for screening as part of a "acceptance" in determining improved screening rates for mailing self-collection kits? If so, this deliverment failed, because readers can not tell how many women have been screened in the mail (according to the 284 women related paper). However, it is easy to validate the validity. Are homework and self-assembled samples equivalent to other screening tests? The release is addressed on this head. It suggests that 12.4 percent of women who have at home at home have high risk of HPV infection. In-clinic, self-collected tests indicate that 15.5% of the highest risk is HPV infections. Also, clinical examinations indicate that 11.4% of women indicate higher risk HPV infection. These are difficult and we will give the benefit of the doubt in this regard. However, those three different numbers raise questions, and it is not a good job of releasing it. More of it.
Do you explain / explain the news of the news release?
Not true
This release did not address two major potential hazards, the high HPCL- And The wrong mistreatment of people with high-risk HPV is misunderstanding. This is the difference between "sensitivity" and "specificity". In this case, a track record of specifications and specifications for HPV screening are particularly relevant. Because this report is self-understanding, some of the most vulnerable are screening tests, not of others. The disappearance of a person who is at risk is clearly disturbed. But ultimately the health care, physical and financial impacts can be faced by serious health problems that do not really face reality.
There may be a fixed rate of patients being sent to the test, but there is another possibility. But doctors are leaving the patient with positive tests and patients undergoing inspection.
Feeling to be the proof of the news release?
Not true
This turns to a very simple issue: the release makes it easy for the readers to report and fail to explain. This concerns the comparison of screening results for three types of tests: at home, the self-collected tests indicate that 12.4% of women had high risk HPV infections; In-clinic, self-collected tests indicate 15.5% higher risk HPV infections; The clinical surveys indicated that 11.4% of women had high risk HPV infections.
In the case of most readers, the difference between 11.4% and 15.5% is very low – over 4%. If they performed mathematics at home, eight people found 193 out of 193, but nothing else. What are you giving But quoting this edition, "we've found a similar finding between self-collection and doctor's collection." Shall it be? This is not helpful. In addition, "all women found to have high germsized cervical leavings, a high HSVC favor with the sample collected by their home self." However, this group is less than 10 or less likely to be limited to a large population. In short, when writing about a diagnostic device, sensitivity and specification should be addressed.
Causes news release
Silence
HPV – Particular difficulties with HPV – can increase the risk of cervical cancer. There is no doubt about it. However, all women who control HPV will accept cervical cancer. There is no doubt about that. In fact, 80 per cent of the CDC has been promised that HPV is 50 years old. However, a study conducted by the National Cancer Institute found that only one per cent of women were diagnosed with cervical cancer. Highlighting is difficult to find if the importance of HPV screening does not reach "infectious" area. This is going straight to the line but it does not pass.
Total score: 8/10 Suitfactory
[ad_2]
Source link
