ArticleInternational journal of cancer2015
Human papillomavirus testing 2007-2012: co-testing and triage utilization and impact on subsequent clinical management.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Public health impact of increasing human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical cancer screening.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Estimated Cancer Risk in Females Who Meet the Criteria to Exit Cervical Cancer Screening.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Association Between Clinician Confidence and Making Guideline-Recommended Decisions in the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Article
- How Can a High-Performance Screening Strategy Be Determined for Cervical Cancer Prevention? Evidence From a Hierarchical Clustering Analysis of a Multicentric Clinical Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Clinical follow-up practices after cervical cancer screening by co-testing: A population-based study of adherence to U.S. guideline recommendations.Preventive medicine · 2021Article
- Revisiting time to translation: implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in cancer control.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2021Article
- Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults aged 30 to 45 years in the United States: A cost-effectiveness analysis.PLoS medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Incorporating Stakeholder Feedback in Guidelines Development for the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2020Article
- Cost effectiveness analysis of HPV primary screening and dual stain cytology triage compared with cervical cytology.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2019Article
- Factors associated with high-risk human papillomavirus test utilization and infection: a population-based study of uninsured and underinsured women.BMC women's health · 2018Article
- Article
- The Next Generation of Cervical Cancer Screening: Should Guidelines Focus on Best Practices for the Future or Current Screening Capacity?Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2018Article
- Uptake of HPV testing and extended cervical cancer screening intervals following cytology alone and Pap/HPV cotesting in women aged 30-65 years.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2018Article
- Outcomes in Women With Cytology Showing Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance With vs Without Human Papillomavirus Testing.JAMA oncology · 2017Observational
- Three-year risk of high-grade CIN for women aged 30 years or older who undergo baseline Pap cytology and HPV co-screening.Cancer cytopathology · 2017Article
- Harms of cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands.International journal of cancer · 2017Article
- Similar Risk Patterns After Cervical Screening in Two Large U.S. Populations: Implications for Clinical Guidelines.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2016Article
- A Low-Cost HPV Immunochromatographic Assay to Detect High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In the United States, high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is recommended for women with atypical squamous cells of unknown significance (ASC-US) cytology, and co-testing with cytology and HPV is a recommended option for screening women aged ≥ 30 years. No population-based data are available to examine utilization of HPV testing in the United States. Using the New Mexico HPV Pap Registry data resource, we describe population trends (2007-2012) in utilization and positivity rates for HPV testing as a routine co-testing screening procedure and for triage of ASC-US and other cytologic outcomes. For women aged 30-65 years co-testing increased from 5.2% in 2007 to 19.1% in 2012 (p < 0.001). Overall 82% of women with ASC-US cytology who did not receive co-testing also had an HPV test. HPV positivity was age and cytology result dependent but did not show time trends. For women with negative cytology, 64% received an additional screening test within 3 years if no co-test was done or if it was positive, but this was reduced to 47% with a negative co-test. Reflex HPV testing for ASC-US cytology is well established and occurs in most women. Evidence for reflex testing is also observed following other abnormal cytology outcomes. Co-testing in women aged 30-65 years has more than tripled from 2007 to 2012, but was still only used in 19.1% of women aged 30-65 years attending for screening in 2012. Women receiving co-testing had longer repeat screening intervals, but rescreening within 3 years is still very common even with co-testing.
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.