Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27122975›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2016

Follow-up for cervical cancer: a Program in Evidence-Based Care systematic review and clinical practice guideline update.

L Elit, E B Kennedy, A Fyles, U Metser

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. SEOM-GEICO Clinical Guidelines on cervical cancer (2023).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Roles of posttherapyEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2018
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Medicaid expansion and overall mortality among women with cervical cancer.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cervical cancer recurrence - can we predict the type of recurrence?Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2020
    Article
  11. SEOM clinical guidelines for cervical cancer (2019).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

L ElitJuravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON;
E B KennedyProgram in Evidence-Based Care, Cancer Care Ontario and McMaster University, Hamilton, ON;
A FylesUniversity Health Network, Toronto, ON.
U MetserUniversity Health Network, Toronto, ON.
University Health Network · CAJuravinski Cancer Centre · CAMcMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2009, the Program in Evidence-based Care (pebc) of Cancer Care Ontario published a guideline on the follow-up of cervical cancer. In 2014, the pebc undertook an update of the systematic review and clinical practice guideline for women in this target population.

methodsThe literature from 2007 to August 2014 was searched using medline and embase [extended to 2000 for studies of human papillomavirus (hpv) dna testing]. Outcomes of interest were measures of survival, diagnostic accuracy, and quality of life. A working group evaluated the need for changes to the earlier guidelines and incorporated comments and feedback from internal and external reviewers.

resultsOne systematic review and six individual studies were included. The working group concluded that the new evidence did not warrant changes to the 2009 recommendations, although hpv dna testing was added as a potentially more sensitive method of detecting recurrence in patients treated with radiotherapy. Comments from internal and external reviewers were incorporated. RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY: Follow-up care after primary treatment should be conducted and coordinated by a physician experienced in the surveillance of cancer patients. A reasonable follow-up strategy involves visits every 3-4 months within the first 2 years, and every 6-12 months during years 3-5. Visits should include a patient history and complete physical examination, with elicitation of relevant symptoms. Vaginal vault cytology examination should not be performed more frequently than annually. Combined positron-emission tomography and computed tomography, other imaging, and biomarker evaluation are not advocated; hpv dna testing could be useful as a method of detection of recurrence after radiotherapy. General recommendations for follow-up after 5 years are also provided.

Indexed as

Cervical cancerclinical practice guidelinesfollow-upsurveillancesystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID27122975
PMCPMC4835009
OpenAlexW2336390599

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.