ArticlePloS one2019
Effectiveness of cervical cancer screening at age 65 - A register-based cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Screening for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer: systematic reviews to inform an update to recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Increased cervical cancer incidence in the target age of screening-Variation by mode of detection.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Effect of Test History at Ages 50-64 on Later Cervical Cancer Risk: A Population-based Case-control Study.Cancer research communications · 2023Article
- Do age-based discontinuation recommendations influence cervical cancer screening rates? Evidence from the United States' Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2016 and 2018.Preventive medicine · 2023Article
- Factors affecting cervical cancer screening among Yemeni immigrant women in Klang Valley, Malaysia: A cross sectional study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of Cervical Testing in and outside a Screening Program-A Case-Control Study.Cancers · 2022Article
- Populations at high risk of cervical cancer in Guangxi Province: Findings from two screening projects in a minority area of South China.Journal of medical screening · 2022Article
- The IARC Perspective on Cervical Cancer Screening.The New England journal of medicine · 2021Article
- Impact of screening between the ages of 60 and 64 on cumulative rates of cervical cancer to age 84y by screening history at ages 50 to 59: A population-based case-control study.Preventive medicine · 2021Article
- Trends in cervical cancer and its precursor forms to evaluate screening policies in a mid-sized Northeastern Brazilian city.PloS one · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most cervical cancer deaths in Finland occur after the termination of the national screening program, targeted at women aged 30 to 64 years. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of screening at age 65 in reducing cervical cancer mortality. A register-based cohort study was performed with a follow-up period between 1991 and 2014. Mortality risk ratios for incident cervical cancer cases diagnosed at age 65 or older were compared between women invited and not invited for screening. The background risk difference between the studied areas was accounted for by using a reference cohort. The relative risk of death for women invited for cervical cancer screening at the age of 65 was 0.52 (95% CI: 0.29-0.94). The relative risks for women not attending and attending to screening with respect to the uninvited were 1.28 (CI: 0.65-2.50) and 0.28 (CI: 0.13-0.59), respectively. Inviting 65-year-old women for screening has been effective in reducing cervical cancer mortality.
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.