Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29179864›Full record

ArticlePapillomavirus research (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2017

Acceptability of cervical cancer screening using visual inspection among women attending a childhood immunization clinic in Uganda.

Meng Li, Agnes Nyabigambo, Patricia Navvuga, Elly Nuwamanya, Afra Nuwasiima, Paschal Kaganda, Francis T Asiimwe, Elisabeth Vodicka, Noleb M Mugisha, Aggrey Mukose and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Papillomavirus research (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Meng LiPharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Global Medicines Program, Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: limeng@uw.edu.
Agnes NyabigamboDepartment of Community Health and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health,Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Patricia NavvugaGlobal Health Economics Ltd, Kampala, Uganda.
Elly NuwamanyaGlobal Health Economics Ltd, Kampala, Uganda.
Afra NuwasiimaGlobal Health Economics Ltd, Kampala, Uganda.
Paschal KagandaGlobal Health Economics Ltd, Kampala, Uganda.
Francis T AsiimweGlobal Health Economics Ltd, Kampala, Uganda.
Elisabeth VodickaPharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Global Medicines Program, Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Noleb M MugishaComprehensive Community Cancer Program, Uganda Cancer Institute, Kampala, Uganda.
Aggrey MukoseDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Doris K KwesigaDepartment of Health Policy, Planning and Management, School of Public Health,Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Solomon J LubingaPharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Global Medicines Program, Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Louis P GarrisonPharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Global Medicines Program, Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Joseph B BabigumiraPharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Global Medicines Program, Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
University of Washington · USWorld Health Organization - Uganda · UGMakerere University · UGUganda Cancer Institute · UG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the acceptability and performance of cervical cancer (CC) screening using visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) integrated into a rural immunization clinic in Uganda. METHODS/MATERIALS: We conducted a cross-sectional pilot study in rural Uganda. We explored associations between women's characteristics and acceptance of VIA testing. We collected samples for Papanicolaou (Pap) smear testing in a random subset of women and used results from this test as a comparator for assessing VIA performance.

resultsWe enrolled 625 women of whom 571 (91.4%) accepted and 54 (8.6%) refused CC screening. In the univariate model, age (Odds Ratio (OR)=1.10; p-value<0.001) and employment status (OR 2.00; p-value=0.019) were significantly associated with acceptance of VIA screening. In the multivariate model, no characteristic was independently associated with acceptance of VIA screening after adjusting for other factors. Compared to reference Pap smear, CC screening with VIA had a sensitivity of 50% and a specificity of 97.7%.

conclusionsCC screening with VIA is highly acceptable in the setting of rural immunization clinics in Uganda. Studies to assess which screening method would be the most effective and cost-effective are needed before stakeholders can consider adopting screening programs at scale.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareAdultAmbulatory Care FacilitiesColposcopyCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansImmunizationMass ScreeningPapanicolaou TestPapillomavirus InfectionsPilot ProjectsPregnancySensitivity and SpecificityUganda

Identifiers

PMID29179864
PMCPMC5883247
OpenAlexW2621663978

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.