Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28704717›Full record

SynthesisCancer epidemiology2017

Implementing community-based cervical cancer screening programs using visual inspection with acetic acid in India: A systematic review.

Prajakta Adsul, Nitin Manjunath, Vijaya Srinivas, Anjali Arun, Purnima Madhivanan

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Screening for cervical cancer: Choices & dilemmas.The Indian journal of medical research · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Prajakta AdsulRobert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work, Florida International University, Miami, USA; Public Health Research Institute of India, Mysore, India; National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA. Electronic address: prajakta.adsul@nih.gov.
Nitin ManjunathPublic Health Research Institute of India, Mysore, India.
Vijaya SrinivasPublic Health Research Institute of India, Mysore, India.
Anjali ArunPublic Health Research Institute of India, Mysore, India.
Purnima MadhivananRobert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work, Florida International University, Miami, USA; Public Health Research Institute of India, Mysore, India.
Public Health Research Institute Of India · INFlorida International University · US

Funding

Research Mentoring and Building Capacity of underrepresented Minority Research Scientists in India.D43TW010540 · FIC · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI MICHELE BARRY, Eva Harris · 2017 to 2026
$15.5M
Global Health Fellows and Scholars Research TrainingR25TW009338 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI BARRY, MICHELE, KO, ALBERT ICKSANG · 2012 to 2016
$5.2M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW010540FIC NIH HHS R25 TW009338Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this review was to systematically appraise the existing published literature about community-based cervical cancer screening programs that have used visual inspection methods using acetic acid (VIA) in India. All peer reviewed journal articles till December 2015 were searched per PRISMA guidelines. Articles reporting results from cervical cancer screening programs in community-based settings, conducted in India, and using VIA were included in this review. The search resulted in 20 articles to be included in the review with a total of 313,553 women at 12 unique urban and rural sites across India. Seventeen (85%) studies were cross-sectional and three studies were randomized controlled trials; most studies compared accuracy of VIA with other screening tests such as visual inspection using Lugol's Iodine (VILI), HPV DNA, and cytology. Of studies that reported test accuracy for CIN Grade 2+, the VIA sensitivity values ranged from 16.6-82.6% and specificity ranged from 82.1-96.8%. Women between age groups of 30-59 years were recruited using motivational one-on-one counseling and local support staff. All studies conducted diagnostic follow-up using colposcopy and guided biopsies, when necessary. Three major themes were identified that facilitated implementation of screening programs in a community-based setting: standardized training that maintained competency of test providers; collaborations with community-based organizations that used health education for recruitment of participants; and employing the screen-and-treat method to reduce loss to follow-up. Summarized evidence presented in this review could substantially influence future implementation and sustainment of cervical cancer screening programs at a national level.

Indexed as

Acetic AcidAdultColposcopyCommunity Health ServicesCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIndiaIodidesMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPregnancyUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAcetic AcidIodidesLugol's solutionAcetic acidCervical cancerHealth planningImplementationIndiaScreeningVisual inspection

Identifiers

PMID28704717
PMCPMC5571735
OpenAlexW2735974985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.