Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26424938›Full record

ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2015

Improving compliance with cervical cancer screening guidelines.

Jessica Langsjoen, Cara Goodell, Eduardo Castro, Jen Thomas, Thomas J Kuehl, Hania Wehbe-Janek, Meghan Hinskey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jessica LangsjoenBaylor Scott & White Health, Temple, Texas.
Cara GoodellBaylor Scott & White Health, Temple, Texas.
Eduardo CastroBaylor Scott & White Health, Temple, Texas.
Jen ThomasBaylor Scott & White Health, Temple, Texas.
Thomas J KuehlBaylor Scott & White Health, Temple, Texas.
Hania Wehbe-JanekBaylor Scott & White Health, Temple, Texas.
Meghan HinskeyBaylor Scott & White Health, Temple, Texas.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID26424938
PMCPMC4569221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.