ArticleBritish journal of cancer2015
Colposcopy attendance and deprivation: A retrospective analysis of 27,193 women in the NHS Cervical Screening Programme.
Article in British journal of 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.
- Observational
- Epidemiology of HPV-associated cancers past, present and future: towards prevention and elimination.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2024Review
- Colposcopy non-attendance following an abnormal cervical cancer screening result: a prospective population-based cohort study.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- Adherence to follow-up after the exit cervical cancer screening test at age 60-64: A nationwide register-based study.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- Understanding the role of oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) status on adherence behaviors among women with abnormal cervical cytology.BMC women's health · 2021Article
- Regional indices of socio-economic and health inequalities: a tool for public health programming.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2019Article
- Overcoming Barriers to Cervical Screening Among Pacific Women: A Narrative Review.Health equity · 2019Review
- An empirical study of the 'underscreened' in organised cervical screening: experts focus on increasing opportunity as a way of reducing differences in screening rates.BMC medical ethics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAttendance for cervical screening is socially graded, but little is known about patterns of attendance for colposcopy following an abnormal screening result.
methodsLogistic regression was used to regress colposcopy attendance status for 27 193 women against age and area-level deprivation, adjusting for ethnicity.
resultsColposcopy attendance was high at 8 weeks (89%) and 4 months post-referral (94%) but women living in the most deprived areas were significantly less likely to attend.
conclusionsThe high overall attendance rates at colposcopy are encouraging but lower attendance among women in the most income-deprived areas indicates that even when these women attend primary cervical screening, they remain at higher risk of missing out on the benefits of the programme.
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.