Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25026889›Full record

Trial reportBMC women's health2014

Analysis of three strategies to increase screening coverage for cervical cancer in the general population of women aged 60 to 70 years: the CRICERVA study.

Amelia Acera, Josep Maria Manresa, Diego Rodriguez, Ana Rodriguez, Josep Maria Bonet, Norman Sanchez, Pablo Hidalgo, Pilar Soteras, Pere Toran, Marta Trapero-Bertran and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC women's health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01373723 (Economic Evaluation of Three Populational Screening Strategies for Cervical Cancer in the County of Valles Occidental), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT01373723 naunknown statusnot on this map

Economic Evaluation of Three Populational Screening Strategies for Cervical Cancer in the County of Valles Occidental: CRICERVA Clinical Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorFundacio d'Investigacio en Atencio Primaria Jordi Gol i GurinaRan2010 to 2013Enrolled20,994ConditionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsArmsDifferent alternatives to improve the coverage of the populational screening programmes of cervical cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

12 authors.

Amelia AceraAtenció a la Salut Sexual i Reproductiva (ASSIR), SAP Cerdanyola -Ripollet, Institut Català de la Salut, Carretera N-150 s/n, Ripollet, Barcelona, Spain. amelia.acera@gmail.com.
Josep Maria Manresa
Diego Rodriguez
Ana Rodriguez
Josep Maria Bonet
Norman Sanchez
Pablo Hidalgo
Pilar Soteras
Pere Toran
Marta Trapero-Bertran
Iris Lozano
Silvia De Sanjose

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is a frequently diagnosed cancer in women worldwide. Despite having easy preventive and therapeutic approaches, it is an important cause of mortality among women.

methodsThe CRICERVA study is a cluster clinical trial which assigned one of three interventions to the target population registered in Cerdanyola, Barcelona. Among the 5,707 resident women aged 60 to 70 years in the study area, women with no record of cervical cytology over the last three years were selected. The study included four arms: three interventions all including a pre-assigned date for screening visit and i) personalized invitation letter; ii) adding to i) an informative leaflet; and, iii) in addition to ii) a personalized appointment reminder phone call, and iv) no specific action taken (control group). Participants were offered a personal interview about social-demographic characteristics and about screening attitudes. Cervical cytology and HPV DNA test (HC2) were offered as screening tests. In the case of screening positive in any of these tests, the women were followed up until a full diagnosis could be obtained. The effect size of each study arm was estimated as the absolute gain in coverage between the original coverage and the final coverage.

resultsFrom the intervention groups (4,775 women), we identified 3,616 who were not appropriately screened, of which 2,560 women answered the trial call and 1,376 were amenable to screening. HPV was tested in 920 women and cervical cytology in all 1,376. Overall, there was an absolute gain in coverage of 28.8% in the intervention groups compared to 6% in the control group. Coverage increased from 51.2% to 76.0% in strategy i); from 47.4% to 79.0% in strategy ii) and from 44.5% to 74.6% in strategy iii). Lack of information about the relevance of screening was the most important factor for not attending the screening program.

conclusionsThe study confirms that actively contacting women and including a date for a screening visit, notably increased participation in the screening program. Efforts to improve health education in preventative activities are warranted.

trial registrationClinical Trials.gov Identifier NCT01373723. Registered 14 June 2011.

Indexed as

Correspondence as TopicPatient ComplianceAgedAtypical Squamous Cells of the CervixCarcinomaEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient Education as TopicPatient SelectionSpainSquamous Intraepithelial Lesions of the CervixUterine Cervical Dysplasia

Identifiers

PMID25026889
PMCPMC4106208

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.