ArticleCancer2015
Cervical cancer screening and follow-up in 4 geographically diverse US health care systems, 1998 through 2007.
Article in Cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- De-implementation of cervical cancer screening before age 21.Preventive medicine · 2021Article
- Cervical Cancer Burden and Opportunities for Prevention in a Safety-Net Healthcare System.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2018Article
- 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
- Identification of lncRNAs by microarray analysis reveals the potential role of lncRNAs in cervical cancer pathogenesis.Oncology letters · 2018Article
- Impact of Widespread Cervical Cancer Screening: Number of Cancers Prevented and Changes in Race-specific Incidence.American journal of clinical oncology · 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
- Harms of cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands.International journal of cancer · 2017Article
- Cervical cancer screening among women ≥70 years of age in the United States-A referral problem or patient choice.Preventive medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer screening and follow-up guidelines have changed considerably in recent years, but to the authors' knowledge few published reports exist to estimate the impact of these changes in community-based settings. The authors examined the patterns and results of cervical cancer testing and follow-up over a decade in 4 geographically diverse US health care systems to inform the future evaluation of changes resulting from increased uptake of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination.
methodsThe authors studied women aged 21 to 65 years who were members of one of these health systems at any time between 1998 and 2007. Data were collected and standardized across sites, based on receipt of Papanicolaou (Pap) and HPV tests, HPV vaccination, cervical biopsies, and treatment of cervical dysplasia. Annual rates (per 1000 person-years) of Pap testing, HPV testing, and cervical biopsy and treatment procedures were calculated. Screening intervals and trends in the results of screening Pap tests and cervical biopsies also were examined.
resultsPap testing rates decreased (from 483 per 1000 person-years in 2000 to 412 per 1000 person-years in 2007) and HPV testing rates increased over the study period. Screening frequency varied across health care systems, and many women continued to receive annual testing. All 4 sites moved to less frequent screening over the study period without marked changes in the overall use of cervical biopsy or treatment.
conclusionsDespite differences over time and across health plans in rates of cervical cancer testing and follow-up cervical procedures, the authors found no notable differences in Pap test results, diagnostic or treatment procedure rates, or pathological outcomes. This finding suggests that the longer screening intervals did not lead to more procedures or more cancer diagnoses.
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.