ArticleInternational journal of women's health2013
Does social disadvantage affect the validity of self-report for cervical cancer screening?
Article in International journal of women's health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Digital motivation for cervical cancer screening: A quasi-experimental trial of the SeDAR Video among middle adulthood Malaysian women.PloS one · 2026Article
- Observational
- Uptake of Cervical Cancer Screening Among Female Patients Using a Mobile Medical Clinic.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023Article
- The Relationship Between Sexual Assault History and Cervical Cancer Screening Completion Among Women Veterans in the Veterans Health Administration.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2022Article
- Trends in the use of cervical cancer screening tests in a large medical claims database, United States, 2013-2019.Gynecologic oncology · 2021Article
- Article
- Validity of self-reported mammography uptake in the Belgian health interview survey: selection and reporting bias.European journal of public health · 2021Article
- Area-level income disparities in colorectal screening in Canada: evidence to inform future surveillance.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2019Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening Access for Women Who Experience Imprisonment in Ontario, Canada.JAMA network open · 2018Article
- Association Between Adherence to Cancer Screening and Knowledge of Screening Guidelines: Feasibility Study Linking Self-Reported Survey Data With Medical Records.JMIR cancer · 2018Article
- Assessment of trends in cervical cancer screening rates using healthcare claims data: United States, 2003-2014.Preventive medicine reports · 2018Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening Among Homeless Women of New York City Shelters.Maternal and child health journal · 2016Article
- Recent trends in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening test utilization in Canada, using self-reported data from 2008 and 2012.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2015Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening: Defining the Need for Research.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2013Article
- Human Papillomavirus Knowledge and Attitude among Homeless Women of New York City Shelters.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's HealthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim was to review the international literature on the validity of self-report of cervical cancer screening, specifically of studies that made direct comparisons among women with and without social disadvantage, based on race/ethnicity, foreign-born status, language ability, income, or education.
methodThe databases of Medline, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL from 1990 to 2011 were searched using relevant search terms. Articles eligible for data extraction documented the prevalence of cervical cancer screening based on both self-report and an objective measure for women both with and without at least one measure of social disadvantage. The report-to-record ratio, the ratio of the proportion of study subjects who report at least one screening test within a particular time frame to the proportion of study subjects who have a record of the same test within that time frame, was calculated for each subgroup.
resultsFive studies met the extraction criteria. Subgroups were based on race/ethnicity, education, and income. In all studies, and across all subgroups, report-to-record ratios were greater than one, indicative of pervasive over-reporting.
conclusionThe findings suggest that objective measures should be used by policymakers, researchers, and public-health practitioners in place of self-report to accurately determine cervical cancer screening rates.
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.