ArticleAnnals of family medicine2017
The Effect of Changes in Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Chlamydia Testing.
Article in Annals of family medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: systematic reviews on effectiveness and patient preferences.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Impact of the transition to HPV-based primary screening in Portugal's organized cervical cancer screening program: A controlled interrupted time-series analysis (2014-2023).Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Gonorrhea and Chlamydia Testing and Case Rates Among Women Veterans in the Veterans Health Administration.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- The pandemic and cervical cancer screening: Is it finally time to adopt HPV self-swabbing tests in Canada?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2022Article
- Article
- Evaluating Screening Participation, Follow-up, and Outcomes for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the PROSPR Consortium.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Article
- MultiCenter Interrupted Time Series Analysis: Incorporating Within and Between-Center Heterogeneity.Clinical epidemiology · 2020Article
- Educational implications of changing the guidelines for the digital rectal examination.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019Article
- Article
- Trends in Cervical Cancer Screening in California's Family Planning Program.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2018Article
- Strategies to reach marginalized women for cervical cancer screening: A qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018Article
- Are we ready for human papillomavirus testing? Assessment of patient knowledge of and preferences for cervical cancer screening in Ontario.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadienArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMany chlamydia infections are identified through screening, which is frequently offered to females concomitantly with cervical cancer screening. Recent cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend screening less frequently and starting later. We sought to evaluate the impact of the May 2012 Ontario, Canada, cervical cancer screening guideline change on Papanicolaou (Pap) and chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia) testing and incidence.
methodsWe extracted population-based physician billing claims data to identify Pap and chlamydia tests and public health surveillance data to identify chlamydia cases. We used interrupted time series analysis of quarterly data spanning 2 years before and after the guideline change and fitted segmented linear regression or rational functions to the outcomes using autoregressive integrated moving average models. Outcomes were stratified by sex and age group.
resultsTwo years after the guideline change, we observed reduced chlamydia testing in females, with the greatest relative reduction (25.5%) among those aged 15 to 19 years. We also observed decreases in reported chlamydia incidence for females aged 15 to 19 years and 20 to 24 years (relative reductions of 16.8% and 14.4%, respectively). Chlamydia incidence remained the same for males, despite increased chlamydia testing.
conclusionsRecent cervical cancer screening guideline changes in Ontario were associated with reduced chlamydia testing and reported new cases of chlamydia in females. Females aged 15 to 19 years, who are at high risk for chlamydia if sexually active, and who no longer warrant cervical cancer screening, were disproportionately affected. Females should be tested for chlamydia based on risk, regardless of need for Pap testing.
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.