Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12137660›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002

Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.

C Forbes, R Jepson, P Martin-Hirsch

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Behavioral Intervention Components Associated With Cost-effectiveness: A Comparison of Six Domains.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

C ForbesNHS Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York, North Yorkshire, UK, YO10 5DD. caf4@york.ac.uk
R Jepson
P Martin-Hirsch

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is the third most common cancer world-wide. Increasing the uptake of screening, alongside increasing informed choice is of great importance in controlling this disease through prevention and early detection.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing uptake, and informed uptake of cervical cancer screening. SEARCH STRATEGY: Twenty-three electronic databases (to March 2000) were searched with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or quasi-RCTs of interventions to increase uptake/informed uptake of cervical cancer screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data on study characteristics and quality were extracted independently by two reviewers. Where data were available, relative risks and 95% CI were calculated and a chi-squared test for heterogeneity was performed. MAIN

resultsThirty-five studies were included (27 RCTs and eight quasi-RCTs). Heterogeneity between studies limited statistical pooling of data. Overall, however, invitations appear to be effective methods of increasing uptake. In addition, there is limited evidence to support the use of educational materials. The number and quality of included studies limited evidence regarding effectiveness of other interventions. Informed uptake of cervical screening was not considered by any studies. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThere was some evidence to support the use of invitation letters to increase the uptake of cervical screening. There was limited evidence to support educational interventions but it was unclear what format was most effective. The majority of the studies were from developed countries and so the relevance to developing countries is unclear.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareFemaleHumansMass ScreeningRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReminder SystemsUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID12137660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.