ReviewThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2016
Performance characteristics of visualising the cervix in symptomatic young females: a review of primary care records in females with and without cervical cancer.
Review in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The use, quality and effectiveness of pelvic examination in primary care for the detection of gynaecological cancer: a systematic review.Family practice · 2019Pooled it
- Effect of crisis intervention nursing on perioperative psychological state and self-efficacy of patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Recognizing Gynecological Cancer in Primary Care: Risk Factors, Red Flags, and Referrals.Advances in therapy · 2018Article
- Cytology in the diagnosis of cervical cancer in symptomatic young women: a retrospective review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection.2016
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe current strategy for timely detection of cervical cancer in young females centres on visualising the cervix when females present with gynaecological symptoms, but is based on expert opinion without an evidence base.
aimTo assess visualising the cervix in primary care in young females with gynaecological symptoms. DESIGN AND
settingA review of primary care records for females in England aged 20-29 years with cervical cancer (nationwide interview-based study) and in the general population (Clinical Practice Research Datalink database).
methodFrom primary care records the proportion of females was identified with gynaecological symptoms who had documented cervical examination in the year before diagnosis (cancers) and in 1-year age bands (general population). Of these, the proportion was identified that was then referred for suspected malignancy.
resultsOnly 39% of young females with cervical cancer had documented examination at symptomatic presentation. Visualisation resulted in referral for suspected malignancy for 18% of those examined (95% confidence interval = 5% to 40%). Very few (<1.7%) symptomatic females in the general population had documented cervical examination. None were referred for suspected malignancy at the time.
conclusionThe sensitivity of cervical examination to detect cancer is very low, highlighting the need for better triage tools for primary care. Until such tools are identified GPs should continue to consider cervical cancer when symptoms persist and the cervix is not obviously abnormal on clinical examination. Further research on additional triage tools such as cervical cytology used as a diagnostic aid is needed urgently.
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.