Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28831448›Full record

ReviewJournal of global oncology2017

Cervical Precancer Treatment in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Technology Overview.

Mauricio Maza, Celina M Schocken, Katherine L Bergman, Thomas C Randall, Miriam L Cremer

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of global oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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 1 institution in 1 country.

Mauricio Maza, , and , Basic Health International, New York, NY; , Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon, Washington, DC; , National Cancer Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; and , Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Celina M Schocken, , and , Basic Health International, New York, NY; , Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon, Washington, DC; , National Cancer Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; and , Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Katherine L Bergman, , and , Basic Health International, New York, NY; , Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon, Washington, DC; , National Cancer Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; and , Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Thomas C Randall, , and , Basic Health International, New York, NY; , Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon, Washington, DC; , National Cancer Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; and , Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Miriam L Cremer, , and , Basic Health International, New York, NY; , Pink Ribbon Red Ribbon, Washington, DC; , National Cancer Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; and , Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
MGH Institute of Health Professions · US

Funding

CryoPen: An Innovative Treatment for Cervical Precancer in Low-Resource SettingUH2CA189883 · NCI · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI CREMER, MIRIAM · 2014 to 2015
$985k
NCI NIH HHS UH2 CA189883
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cervical cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in women worldwide, with 90% of cases occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There has been a global effort to increase access to affordable screening in these settings; however, a corresponding increase in availability of effective and inexpensive treatment modalities for ablating or excising precancerous lesions is also needed to decrease mortality. This article reviews the current landscape of available and developing technologies for treatment of cervical precancer in LMICs. At present, the standard treatment of most precancerous lesions in LMICs is gas-based cryotherapy. This low-cost, effective technology is an expedient treatment in many areas; however, obtaining and transporting gas is often difficult, and unwieldy gas tanks are not conducive to mobile health campaigns. There are several promising ablative technologies in development that are gasless or require less gas than conventional cryotherapy. Although further evaluation of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness is needed, several of these technologies are safe and can now be implemented in LMICs. Nonsurgical therapies, such as therapeutic vaccines, antivirals, and topical applications, are also promising, but most remain in early-stage trials. The establishment of evidence-based standardized protocols for available treatments and the development and introduction of novel technologies are necessary steps in overcoming barriers to treatment in LMICs and decreasing the global burden of cervical cancer. Guidance from WHO on emerging treatment technologies is also needed.

Identifiers

PMID28831448
PMCPMC5560450
OpenAlexW2509183844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.