Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23328247›Full record

ReviewMedical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre2013

Current recommendations for cervical cancer screening: do they render the annual pelvic examination obsolete?

Robert P Kauffman, Stephen J Griffin, Jon D Lund, Paul E Tullar

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Investigating Cervical Risk Factors that Lead to Cytological and Biopsy Examination.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2020
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Robert P KauffmanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine, Amarillo, TX 79106, USA. robert.kauffman@ttuhsc.edu
Stephen J Griffin
Jon D Lund
Paul E Tullar
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center · USTexas Tech University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of a screening test for cervical dysplasia has been a major force in diminishing the worldwide incidence of invasive cervical cancer. Screening intervals recommended by professional organizations have changed over the past half century. Recognition of the human papillomavirus (HPV) as the causative agent and enhanced understanding of the natural history of HPV and cervical dysplasia in different age groups have prompted the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other professional societies to defer Pap smear screening to intervals no less than 2 years apart in women 21-29, and every 3 years in women 30 and over assuming no prior history of cervical dysplasia. Screening should start no sooner than age 21. These recommendations more closely resemble those currently practiced in Europe and other parts of the developed world. Those who have undergone hysterectomy no longer need screening unless high-grade dysplasia was present. Although the value of pelvic examination is not debated in women with symptoms referable to the female genital tract, the endorsement by several professional societies of less than annual cervical cancer screening in healthy women also begs the question of whether annual pelvic examination (speculum and/or bimanual examination) benefits asymptomatic women. Some sexually transmitted infections are amenable to self-insertion of a vaginal probe or detectable by voided urine specimen. Bimanual examination is insensitive in detecting early ovarian cancer with a high false-positive rate leading to patient anxiety, excessive diagnostic testing, and unnecessary surgical procedures. Future study should focus on the frequency in which healthy asymptomatic women should undergo pelvic examination.

Indexed as

Gynecological ExaminationMass ScreeningEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansHysterectomyMenopausePapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesPractice Guidelines as TopicUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID23328247
PMCPMC5586750
OpenAlexW2070577212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.