ArticleRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2018
Development of a clinical protocol for detection of cervical cancer precursor lesions.
Article in Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 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, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- External Ventricular Drains: Development and Evaluation of a Nursing Clinical Practice Guideline.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2022Article
- Effect of arsenic trioxide on cervical cancer and its mechanisms.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveto develop and validate the content of a clinical protocol aimed at prevention of cervical cancer in primary care.
methodtechnological research according to the steps: (1) submission of the project to the research ethics committee; (2) bibliographic survey; (3) elaboration of the clinical protocol; and (4) content validation. In the third step, the information was collected through bibliographic research and gynecology specialists were consulted. For the final step, four judges were selected to evaluate the clinical protocol according to AGREE 2. Domains that reached the minimum level of agreement of 75% in the scores were considered validated.
resultsthe scores obtained in each domain of the instrument were as follows: domain 1 (scope and purpose) = 87.5%; domain 2 (stakeholder involvement) = 83.3%; domain 3 (development rigor) = 79.7%; domain 4 (clarity of presentation) = 76.3%; domain 5 (applicability) = 78.1%; and domain 6 (editorial independence) = 85.4.
conclusionthe clinical protocol proved to be a validated material with scores above the minimum required. The protocol obtained positive recommendations with modifications and went through adjustments in order to make it more effective.
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.