ArticleSexually transmitted infections2012
Confusion regarding cervical cancer screening and chlamydia screening among sexually active young women.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2021Guideline
- Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2015Guideline
- Identifying the key barriers, facilitators and factors associated with cervical cancer screening attendance in young women: A systematic review.Women's health (London, England)Pooled it
- Chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening and diagnosis by anatomical site among individuals with opposite-sex partners: a rapid review.Sexually transmitted infections · 2025Article
- "A Huge Gap": Health Care Provider Perspectives on Cancer Screening for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People in the Northern Territory.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- "The Vagina is a Very Tricky Little Thing Down There": Cervical Health Literacy among Incarcerated Women.Journal of health care for the poor and underserved · 2015Article
- Estimating chlamydia screening coverage: a comparison of self-report and health care effectiveness data and information set measures.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2014Article
- Current recommendations for cervical cancer screening: do they render the annual pelvic examination obsolete?Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recently recommended that cervical cancer screening begin at 21 years of age and occur biennially for low-risk women younger than 30 years. Earlier studies suggested that women may have limited understanding of the differences between cervical cancer screening and chlamydia screening. This study assessed the knowledge of chlamydia and cervical cancer screening tests and schedules in younger women.
methodsA survey regarding knowledge of chlamydia and cervical cancer screening was administered to 60 younger women aged 18-25 years in an obstetrics and gynaecology clinic at an urban community health centre.
resultsThe majority of respondents recalled having had a Pap smear (93.3%) or chlamydia test (75.0%). Although many respondents understood that a Pap smear checks for cervical cancer (88.3%) and human papillomavirus (68.3%), 71.7% mistakenly believed that a Pap smear screens for chlamydia. No respondent correctly identified the revised cervical cancer screening schedule, and 83.3% selected annual screening. Few respondents (23.3%) identified the annual chlamydia screening schedule and 26.7% were unsure.
conclusionMany younger women in an urban community health centre believed that cervical cancer screening also screens for chlamydia and were confused about chlamydia screening schedules. As there is limited knowledge of the revised ACOG cervical cancer screening guidelines, there is a risk that currently low chlamydia screening rates may decrease further after these new guidelines are better known. Obstetrician gynaecologists and primary care providers should educate younger women about the differences between chlamydia and cervical cancer screening and encourage sexually active younger women to have annual chlamydia screening.
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.