Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23706117›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2013

Screening for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Leslea Peirson, Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Donna Ciliska, Rachel Warren

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 207 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
207citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03324009 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Development of a Two-stage Cervical Cancer Screening Algorithm for Botswana

TypeinterventionalSponsorBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterRan2018 to 2020Enrolled239ConditionsCervical Cancer, HIV/AIDSArms2-stage screen
NCT05789628 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

A Look at the Patterns in Medical Research Participation Among Patients With Cervical Cancer

TypeobservationalSponsorPower Life Sciences Inc.Ran2024 to 2026Enrolled500ConditionsCervical Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

207 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Exposure Definition in Case-Control Studies of Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Literature Review.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. 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
  16. Trial
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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.

Leslea PeirsonMcMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Centre-MERSC, 1280 Main Street West, DTC-322, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada. peirson@mcmaster.ca
Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis
Donna Ciliska
Rachel Warren

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe systematic review on which this paper is based provided evidence for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to update their guideline regarding screening for cervical cancer. In this article we highlight three questions covered in the full review that pertain to the effectiveness of screening for reducing cervical cancer mortality and incidence as well as optimal timing and frequency of screening.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central from 1995 to 2012 for relevant randomized controlled trials and observational studies with comparison groups. Eligible studies included women aged 15 to 70 years who were screened using conventional cytology, liquid-based cytology or human papillomavirus DNA tests. Relevance screening, data extraction, risk of bias analyses and quality assessments were performed in duplicate. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model on the one body of evidence that could be pooled.

resultsFrom the 15,145 screened citations, 27 papers (24 studies) were included; five older studies located in a United States Preventive Services Task Force review were also included. A randomized controlled trial in India showed even a single lifetime screening test significantly decreased the risk of mortality from and incidence of advanced cervical cancer compared to no screening (mortality: risk ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.47, 0.90; incidence: relative risk 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.42, 0.75). Cytology screening was shown to be beneficial in a cohort study that found testing significantly reduced the risk of being diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer compared to no screening (risk ratio 0.38; 95% confidence interval 0.23, 0.63). Pooled evidence from a dozen case-control studies also indicated a significant protective effect of cytology screening (odds ratio 0.35; 95% confidence interval 0.30, 0.41). This review found no conclusive evidence for establishing optimal ages to start and stop cervical screening, or to determine how often to screen; however the available data suggests substantial protective effects for screening women 30 years and older and for intervals of up to five years.

conclusionsThe available evidence supports the conclusion that cervical screening does offer protective benefits and is associated with a reduction in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and cervical cancer mortality.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningVaginal SmearsDNA, ViralFemaleHumansUterine Cervical NeoplasmsDNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID23706117
PMCPMC3681632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.