ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2013
Counterpoint: cervical cancer screening guidelines--approaching the golden age.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results and Concordance with Guideline Recommendations in Three US Healthcare Settings.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024Article
- Expanding the upper age limit for cervical cancer screening: a protocol for a nationwide non-randomised intervention study.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Absolute risks of cervical precancer among women who fulfill exiting guidelines based on HPV and cytology cotesting.International journal of cancer · 2020Article
- Automated recommendation for cervical cancer screening and surveillance.Cancer informatics · 2014Article
- Cervical screening at age 50-64 years and the risk of cervical cancer at age 65 years and older: population-based case control study.PLoS medicine · 2014Article
- Cervical cancer screening in older women: new evidence and knowledge gaps.PLoS medicine · 2014Article
- Counterpoint: cervical cancer screening guidelines--approaching the golden age.American journal of epidemiology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Changes in screening guidelines that imply suppression of procedures once recommended are always controversial because of the perception that benefits are being curtailed. Prior to 2012, cervical cancer screening guidelines issued by US-based expert bodies differed in several decision areas, making clinicians essentially cherry-pick among recommendations. To some extent, this approach to screening practices also served to shield clinicians from litigation. It implied starting screening earlier, doing it more frequently, and stopping later in life than necessary. This state of affairs changed in 2012, when the most influential professional groups updated their cervical screening guidelines, and recommendations became essentially unified. All groups recommended that women older than 65 years of age discontinue cervical cancer screening on the basis of evidence that screening benefits in this age group were minor and far outweighed by harms. The guidelines are very specific about the exceptions, which ensure acceptable safety. It is expected that the new guidelines will permit less wasteful cervical screening, while fostering the opportunity to direct resources towards ensuring adequate coverage of high-risk women.
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.