Observational studyJournal of gynecologic oncology2018
Trends in single women with malignancy of the uterine cervix in United States.
Observational study in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the Impact of Cervical Cancer and HPV Educational Awareness Program in Macon County, Alabama from 2018 to 2023.Journal of healthcare, science and the humanities · 2025Article
- Cross-Sectional Analysis of Human Papillomavirus Infection and Cytological Abnormalities in Brazilian Women.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Knowledge and Awareness about Cervical Cancer and Human Papillomavirus among Women Living in Macon County, Alabama.Journal of healthcare, science and the humanities · 2022Article
- Characteristics and outcomes of reproductive-aged women with early-stage cervical cancer: trachelectomy vs hysterectomy.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2018Observational
- Trachelectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer with tumor size >2 cm: trends and characteristics in the United States.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine trends and characteristics of single women with malignancy of the uterine cervix.
methodsThis is a retrospective observational study examining the United States population-based tumor registry (the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program). Time-specific trends in single marital status were examined in 3,294,208 women among 12 common female malignancies including 87,151 women with uterine cervical malignancy between 1973 and 2013.
resultsWhile the proportion of single women in the majority of malignancies increased during the study time, the proportion of single women with cervical malignancy significantly increased more than in other malignancies (29.3% in 2013 from 6.3% in 1973). There was a surge in the proportion of single women with cervical malignancy starting in the early 1990s, exhibiting the largest annual percentage rate change (APC) among all examined malignancies (1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.6, 2.0; p<0.001). There was a significant decrease in the proportion of women aged <40 years with cervical malignancy between 1989 and 2013 (APC, -1.2%; 95% CI=-1.4, -1.0; p<0.001). However, when stratified by age, the proportion of single women aged ≥40 years increased significantly during the time (APC, 2.7%; 95% CI=2.3, 3.2; p<0.001) but did not in those who were <40 years (APC, 0.1%; 95% CI=-0.7, 0.6; p=0.850).
conclusionThe proportion of single women with malignancy of the uterine cervix has significantly increased in the past 4 decades. This increase was most dramatic in single women aged ≥40 years. Improving screening strategies in single women aged ≥40 years may help reduce the incidence of this malignancy.
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.