ArticleEcancermedicalscience2015
Screening of cervical cancer in Catalonia 2006-2012.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Research can be integrated into public health policy-making: global lessons for and from Spanish economic evaluations.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Article
- Translational progress on tumor biomarkers.Thoracic cancer · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The early detection of intraepithelial lesions of the cervix, through the periodic examination of cervical cells, has been fundamental for the prevention of invasive cervical cancer and its related mortality. In this report, we summarise the cervical cancer screening activities carried out in Catalonia, Spain, within the National Health System during 2008-2011. The study population covers over two million women resident in the area. The evaluation includes 758,690 cervical cytologies performed on a total of 595,868 women. The three-year coverage of cervical cytology among women aged between 25 and 65 years was 40.8%. About 50% of first screened women with negative results had not returned to the second screening round. The introduction of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA (HPV) detection, as a primary screening cotest with cytology among women over age 40 with a poor screening history, significantly improved the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), being far superior to cytology alone. Cotesting did not improve the detection of CIN2+. The use of the HPV test for the triage of atypical squamous cell undetermined significance (ASC-US) improved the selection of women at high risk of CIN2+. Sampling (both cytology and HPV test) was largely performed by midwives (66.7%), followed by obstetricians (23.8%) and nurses (7%). Over half of the centres (54.8%) had full use of online medical records. During the study period, educational activities for professionals and for women were carried out periodically. The organisation of screening as a population activity in which women are actively called to the screening visit and the introduction of HPV testing as a primary screening tool are strongly recommended to ensure the maximum population impact in the reduction of the cervical cancer burden.
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.