ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2015
Improving compliance with cervical cancer screening guidelines.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective validation study: a non-invasive circulating tumor DNA-based assay for simultaneous early detection of multiple cancers in asymptomatic adults.BMC medicine · 2025Observational
- Unindicated cervical cancer screening in adolescent females within a large healthcare system in the United States.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2021Article
- Improving the diagnostic workup of hyponatremia in the setting of kidney disease: a continuing medical education (CME) initiative.International urology and nephrology · 2017Article
- Effect of number of human papillomavirus vaccine doses on guideline adherent cervical cytology screening among 19-26year old females.Preventive medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current cervical cancer screening guidelines for the care of healthy women include HPV cotesting with all Papanicolaou (Pap) smears after the age of 30. To improve compliance with current guidelines, we instituted two processes: first, simplifying the ordering process to a single order for Pap smear plus HPV cotesting using an electronic medical record system (EMR); and second, providing education for clinic staff. Baseline and postintervention data were collected by retrospective chart review. Patients were selected during three intervals: prior to the transition to Epic EMR, after the transition to Epic, and after an educational intervention. Compliance with standard guidelines was evaluated in relation to the trial intervals, type of provider, patient age, and duration from the previous Pap smear. Provider type was analyzed by considering gynecologists versus nongynecologist providers, and physicians versus mid-level providers. Overall, the percentage of compliance with HPV test ordering did not differ (P = 0.21) between intervals. Univariate analyses performed to identify factors likely to be associated with the practice of ordering HPV cotesting only involved the type of provider. In conclusion, transition to Epic and a training session had minimal impact on compliance with ordering HPV cotesting at the time of a Pap smear except among family practice physicians, who did significantly improve their compliance rate. Gynecologists and mid-level providers were more compliant with ordering HPV cotesting throughout, but did not significantly improve after the interventions.
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.