Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21563135›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011

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

Thomas Everett, Andrew Bryant, Michelle F Griffin, Pierre Pl Martin-Hirsch, Carol A Forbes, Ruth G Jepson

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04970394 (Three-year Prospective Cohort Study of the Effectiveness of Physician Reminders on Cervical Screening Uptake Amongst Non Responders in a UK Primary Care Setting), which is not on this map. Cited by 90 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT04970394 completednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Three-year Prospective Cohort Study of the Effectiveness of Physician Reminders on Cervical Screening Uptake Amongst Non Responders in a UK Primary Care Setting

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorDr. Faizan AwanRan2017 to 2021Enrolled724ConditionsHPV-Related Cervical Carcinoma, Physician-Patient RelationsArmsCervical Screening Reminder
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

90 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 334 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved women in Europe.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Educational Interventions to Promote Cervical Cancer Screening among Rural Populations: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Non-speculum sampling approaches for cervical screening in older women: randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Trial
  18. Trial
  19. How does information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening alter the intention to be screened?: a randomized survey of Norwegian women.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2019
    Trial
  20. Trial

30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas EverettDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, BOX 242, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge, UK, CB2 0QQ.
Andrew Bryant
Michelle F Griffin
Pierre Pl Martin-Hirsch
Carol A Forbes
Ruth G Jepson
Addenbrooke's Hospital · GBNewcastle University · GBRoyal Preston Hospital · GBScottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorld-wide, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women. 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 women, to increase the uptake, including informed uptake, of cervical cancer screening. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 1, 2009. MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases up to March 2009. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase uptake/informed uptake of cervical cancer screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis. MAIN

resultsThirty-eight trials met our inclusion criteria. These trials assessed the effectiveness of invitational and educational interventions, counselling, risk factor assessment and procedural interventions. Heterogeneity between trials 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. Secondary outcomes including cost data were incompletely documented so evidence was limited. Most trials were at moderate risk of bias. Informed uptake of cervical screening was not reported in any trials. AUTHORS'

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

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPrecancerous ConditionsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReminder SystemsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal Smears

Identifiers

PMID21563135
PMCPMC4163962
OpenAlexW1933814988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.