ArticleAnnals of epidemiology2019
Prevalence and determinants of cervical cancer screening with a combination of cytology and human papillomavirus testing.
Article in Annals of epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correlates of Integrated Human Papillomavirus Vaccination and Cervical Cancer Screening Protection in U.S. Low-Income Women.Vaccines · 2026Article
- Herpes Simplex Virus, Human Papillomavirus, and Cervical Cancer: Overview, Relationship, and Treatment Implications.Cancers · 2023Review
- Predictive value of hepatitis B serological indicators for mortality among cancer survivors and validation in a gastric cancer cohort.PloS one · 2023Article
- Prognostic impact of hepatitis B virus infection in patients with primary cervical cancer.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
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
Abstract
purposeIn the United States, recommended options for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 years or older include cytology alone or a combination of cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing (co-testing). Although there is a body of evidence suggesting that co-testing may be the preferred screening option in this group of women, little is known about the characteristics of women who screen for cervical cancer with co-testing.
methodsA multistage area probability design-based survey was administered to a representative sample of Texas residents. Of the 1348 female respondents, 572 women aged 30 years or older were included in this analysis. Population-weighted survey logistic regression was used to identify determinants of cervical screening with co-testing versus screening with cytology alone.
resultsWomen vaccinated against HPV (aOR: 4.48, 95% CI: 1.25-15.97) or hepatitis B virus [aOR: 2.48 (1.52-4.02)], those with a personal cancer history [aOR: 2.96 (1.29-6.77)], and hormonal contraception users [aOR: 2.03 (1.03-3.97)] were more likely to be screened with co-testing than with cytology alone. Moreover, the likelihood of being screened with co-testing decreased with increasing age and decreasing annual household income.
conclusionsBenefits and indications of co-testing should be better explained to women and health care providers.
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.