ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2018
Cervical Cancer Screening Intervals Preferred by U.S. Women.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 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.
- Impact of an educational tool on young women's knowledge of cervical cancer screening recommendations.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022Trial
- Changing Preferences for a Cervical Cancer Screening Strategy: Moving Away from Annual Testing.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Disparities in cervical cancer survival in the United States by race and stage at diagnosis: An analysis of 138,883 women diagnosed between 2001 and 2014 (CONCORD-3).Gynecologic oncology · 2021Article
- Estimated Quality of Life and Economic Outcomes Associated With 12 Cervical Cancer Screening Strategies: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.JAMA internal medicine · 2019Article
- Barriers to the non-acceptance of cervical cancer screenings (pap smear test) in women of childbearing age in a rural area of Peru.Ecancermedicalscience · 2019Article
- Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options: Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMany U.S. women continue to be screened annually for cervical cancer, despite current guidelines that recommend 3- or 5-year screening intervals depending on screening modality and patient age.
methodsData from 2012 and 2015 web-based surveys of U.S. adults were analyzed in 2017 to investigate U.S. women's cervical cancer screening preferences. The study was limited to women aged ≥18 years without a hysterectomy or cervical cancer diagnosis (2012 n=1,380, 2015 n=1,339).
resultsWomen's preference for 3- or 5-year screening intervals doubled during the study period (2012: 31.2%, 2015: 64.2%, p<0.001). The most preferred screening options in 2015 were co-testing every 3 years with the Pap and human papillomavirus tests (34.0%) and annual Pap testing (30.4%)-neither of which were recommended at that time or currently. Use of 3- and 5-year Pap testing intervals increased during the study period (2012: 6.9%, 2015: 12.9%, p<0.001), whereas annual Pap testing declined (2012: 48.5%, 2015: 35.6%, p<0.001). Among women who were regularly screened and preferred 3- or 5-year screening intervals, the minority reported screening practices that matched this preference (2012: 24.1%, 2015: 29.3%, p=0.71).
conclusionsWomen's preference for longer cervical cancer screening intervals has increased rapidly and outpaced utilization. At the same time, many women continue to be screened annually. Expanding appropriate screening may require increasing women's and providers' comfort with screening recommendations.
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.