Trial reportJournal of clinical pathology2006
Implementation of human papillomavirus testing in cervical screening without a concomitant decrease in participation rate.
Trial report in Journal of clinical pathology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Determinants of (non-)attendance at the Dutch cancer screening programmes: A systematic review.Journal of medical screening · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Public Preferences and Predicted Uptake for Esophageal Cancer Screening Strategies: A Labeled Discrete Choice Experiment.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Prevention of Cervical Cancer: Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3 Level, AWMF Register Number 015/027OL, December 2017) - Part 1 with Introduction, Screening and the Pathology of Cervical Dysplasia.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2019Article
- Does the primary screening test influence women's anxiety and intention to screen for cervical cancer? A randomized survey of Norwegian women.BMC public health · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adding high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing to screening increases the efficacy of cervical screening programmes. However, hrHPV testing may result in a lower participation rate because of the perceived association with sexually transmitted infections. We describe how testing for hrHPV was added to cervical screening in the POpulation-BAsed SCreening study AMsterdam (POBASCAM) trial. Participation rates of the screening programme before and after hrHPV implementation were evaluated in the region where the POBASCAM trial was carried out. The participation rate was 58.7% before and 61.4% after the addition of hrHPV testing to screening (p<0.001). An inventory of frequently asked questions is presented. Thus, hrHPV testing can be added to cervical screening by cytology without a decrease in participation rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.