Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23788013›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of public health2014

Cytology use for cervical cancer screening in Portugal: results from the 2005/2006 National Health Survey.

Mariana Oliveira, Bárbara Peleteiro, Nuno Lunet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of public health, 2014. 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
–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.

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.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

3 authors.

Mariana Oliveira1 Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Predictive Medicine and Public Health, University of Porto Medical School, Porto, Portugal.
Bárbara Peleteiro
Nuno Lunet

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the patterns of cervical cytology use in preventive care may provide useful information for an efficient transition from opportunistic screening to organized programmes. We aimed to identify the determinants of non-use and underuse of cervical cytology in Portuguese women.

methodsAs part of the fourth National Health Survey (2005/2006), 2191 women aged between 25 and 64 years were evaluated. The previous use of cervical cytology was classified as never or ever, and, among the latter, those having performed the latest cytology testing >5 years before were considered to underuse cervical cytology. We assessed the determinants of non-use and underuse through age- and education-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

resultsOverall, 23.5% of women had never used cervical cytology and 10.7% reported underuse. This prevalence increased with age and decreased with education and income. Compared with the national mean, the lowest risk of non-use and underuse was observed in Norte (non-use: OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.23-0.42; underuse: OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.40-0.91) and the highest in Alentejo (non-use: OR = 2.33, 95% CI: 1.78-3.06; underuse: OR = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.43-3.93). Women without a private health insurance (OR = 2.65, 95% CI: 1.29-5.47), who had no doctor appointments in the preceding 3 months (OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 1.22-3.48) and those who had never performed a mammography (OR = 17.78, 95% CI: 9.09-34.78) were more likely to have never performed a cervical cytology.

conclusionThis study shows inequalities in the use of cervical cancer screening in Portugal and provides useful information for a better allocation of resources for cancer screening.

Indexed as

AdultCross-Sectional StudiesCytodiagnosisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPortugalSurveys and QuestionnairesUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID23788013
PMCPMC3966282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.