ArticlePloS one2014
Disparities in cervical cancer mortality rates as determined by the longitudinal hyperbolastic mixed-effects type II model.
Article in PloS one, 2014. 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.
- Improving HPV Vaccine Coverage in Tennessee: Addressing Barriers and Expanding Access for Mid-Adults.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Structural Racism in Cervical Cancer Care and Survival Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Inequities and Barriers.Current epidemiology reports · 2025Review
- A Comparative Study of Health Disparities in Cervical Cancer Mortality Rates Through Time Between Black and Caucasian Women in Alabama and the US.International journal of studies in nursing · 2021Article
- Oxidative stress markers in patient-derived non-cancerous cervical tissues and cells.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Parental acceptance and uptake of the HPV vaccine among African-Americans and Latinos in the United States: A literature review.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2016Review
- Article
- Trends in Precancerous Cervical Lesions by Area-Based Measures of Poverty, Race, and Ethnicity, Connecticut, 2008-2018.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe main purpose of this study was to model and analyze the dynamics of cervical cancer mortality rates for African American (Black) and White women residing in 13 states located in the eastern half of the United States of America from 1975 through 2010.
methodsThe cervical cancer mortality rates of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) were used to model and analyze the dynamics of cervical cancer mortality. A longitudinal hyperbolastic mixed-effects type II model was used to model the cervical cancer mortality data and SAS PROC NLMIXED and Mathematica were utilized to perform the computations.
resultsDespite decreasing trends in cervical cancer mortality rates for both races, racial disparities in mortality rates still exist. In all 13 states, Black women had higher mortality rates at all times. The degree of disparities and pace of decline in mortality rates over time differed among these states. Determining the paces of decline over 36 years showed that Tennessee had the most rapid decline in cervical cancer mortality for Black women, and Mississippi had the most rapid decline for White Women. In contrast, slow declines in cervical cancer mortality were noted for Black women in Florida and for White women in Maryland.
conclusionsIn all 13 states, cervical cancer mortality rates for both racial groups have fallen. Disparities in the pace of decline in mortality rates in these states may be due to differences in the rates of screening for cervical cancers. Of note, the gap in cervical cancer mortality rates between Black women and White women is narrowing.
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.