ArticleSystematic reviews2018
Treatment of cervical cancer in HIV-seropositive women from developing countries: a protocol for a systematic review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identify Function of WASL in Prognosis of Cervical Cancer Based on Omics Data.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021Article
- Eugenol Exerts Apoptotic Effect and Modulates the Sensitivity of HeLa Cells to Cisplatin and Radiation.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer has become the most common cancer affecting women in Africa. Significantly, 85% of these annual deaths occur in the developing world, with the majority being middle-aged women. Research has shown that in sub-Saharan Africa, cervical cancer trends are on the rise in the past two decades because of HIV and this has resulted in an increase in cervical cancer cases among young women. However, little or no information exists that has shown that any of the available treatment methods are more effective than others when it comes to treating cervical cancer in HIV-seropositive women. The aim of this protocol is to offer a plan on how to systematically review cervical cancer treatment methods available for HIV-seropositive women in developing countries. METHODS/
designThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement was used to develop the protocol for the systematic review which will be reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A number of databases, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL and Cochrane Library, will be searched for relevant studies, and citation and reference list tracking will be used to search for additional studies. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control, randomised controlled trials and cross-sectional studies that were carried out in and for the developing world will be eligible for inclusion. Peer-reviewed studies and grey literature examining cervical cancer treatment modalities in HIV-seropositive women will be included. Descriptive statistics and tables will be used to summarise results, and meta-analysis will be used where appropriate. DISCUSSION: The review findings will provide the current picture of the existing treatment methods being used to treat cervical cancer in HIV-seropositive women in developing countries. The findings might be used for the establishment of evidence-based guidelines for treatment of cervical cancer in seropositive women as well as prompt policy-makers and governments to decide and support future research in a way to find a lasting solution. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017054676 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=54676.
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.