ArticleCurrent treatment options in oncology2015
Making Sense of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines and Recommendations.
Article in Current treatment options in oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contemporary Status and Frontiers of Cervical Cancer Screening in the United States.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Review
- Association Between Clinician Confidence and Making Guideline-Recommended Decisions in the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- Detection of 14 High-Risk Human Papillomaviruses Using Digital LAMP Assays on a Self-Digitization Chip.Analytical chemistry · 2021Article
- Comparative analysis of roboticWorld journal of clinical cases · 2019Article
- Sociodemographic characteristics, sexual behaviour and knowledge about cervical cancer prevention as risk factors for high-risk human papillomavirus infection in Arkhangelsk, North-West Russia.International journal of circumpolar health · 2018Article
- Relative Performance of HPV and Cytology Components of Cotesting in Cervical Screening.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2018Article
- Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening and Prevention in 78 Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinics-United States, 2014-2015.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2017Article
- Why does cervical cancer occur in a state-of-the-art screening program?Gynecologic oncology · 2017Article
- Cervical cancer screening in a low-resource setting: a pilot study on an HPV-based screen-and-treat approach.Cancer medicine · 2017Article
- Article
- Piwil2 is reactivated by HPV oncoproteins and initiates cell reprogramming via epigenetic regulation during cervical cancer tumorigenesis.Oncotarget · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementSince the publication of the American Cancer Society (ACS)/American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP)/American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP) clinical guidelines in 2012, the majority of practice organizations have reached a consensus on screening recommendations for a low-risk population. These guidelines were based on a thorough review of the evidence with reproducible methods to obtain high-quality, generalizable guidelines. Despite the strength of the evidence based recommendations comprising these guidelines, limitations in physician understanding and compliance remain with respect to reaching an unscreened population and defining and caring for women who are at "high risk." "High-risk" patients are poorly characterized but should include women with a history of a prior abnormal screening, as data has shown a subsequent increased risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or greater, even after treatment. These women warrant more intense screening than the general population-though there are no evidence-based guidelines for optimized screening protocols in this population. Emerging data in cervical cancer screening this year includes the FDA approval of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. While the data is promising, its role in clinical practice, impact on rates of colposcopy in a non-study population, and long-term outcomes are not fully understood, and ongoing research is needed. Challenges remain in this shifting environment on the optimal interval and modality for cervical cancer screening to provide the greatest benefit in detection of precancerous lesions while minimizing the harm of overtreatment. While rapid advancements in research provide improved knowledge on how to treat and prevent this disease, it is often difficult for providers across multiple specialties to remain abreast of these changes and to educate their patients about the most current recommendations. Ultimately, provider and patient education is critical both for improving primary prevention with HPV vaccination, as well as for the uptake of evidence-based screening and management guidelines aimed at detecting and treating precancerous changes of the cervix.
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.