ArticleAIDS care2014
Improving cervical cancer screening rates in an urban HIV clinic.
Article in AIDS care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Randomized Trial of Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling as an Intervention to Promote Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women With HIV.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2016Trial
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice of cervical cancer screening among women living with HIV in the Kilimanjaro region, northern Tanzania.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Prevalence and correlates of cervical HPV infection in a clinic-based sample of HIV-positive Hispanic women.Papillomavirus research (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected women are at increased risk of invasive cervical cancer; however, screening rates remain low. The objectives of this study were to analyze a quality improvement intervention to increase cervical cancer screening rates in an urban academic HIV clinic and to identify factors associated with inadequate screening. Barriers to screening were identified by a multidisciplinary quality improvement committee at the Washington University Infectious Diseases clinic. Several strategies were developed to address these barriers. The years pre- and post-implementation were analyzed to examine the clinical impact of the intervention. A total of 422 women were seen in both the pre-implementation and post-implementation periods. In the pre-implementation period, 222 women (53%) underwent cervical cancer screening in the form of Papanicolaou (Pap) testing. In the post-implementation period, 318 women (75.3%) underwent cervical cancer screening (p < 0.01). Factors associated with lack of screening included fewer visits attended (pre: 4.2 ± 1.5; post: 3.4 ± 1.4; p < 0.01). A multidisciplinary quality improvement intervention was successful in overcoming barriers and increasing cervical cancer screening rates in an urban academic HIV clinic.
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.