Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31517672›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP)2020

A roadmap for a comprehensive control of cervical cancer in Poland: integration of available solutions into current practice in primary and secondary prevention.

Andrzej Nowakowski, Marc Arbyn, Maryla H Turkot, Paulina Wieszczy, Kinga Miłosz, Michał F Kamiński, Joanna Didkowska, Mariusz Bidziński, Włodzimierz Olszewski, Mirosław Wielgoś and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Andrzej NowakowskiCentral Coordination Center for Cervical Cancer Screening Program, Department of Cancer Prevention, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warszawa.
Marc ArbynSciensano, Unit of Cancer Epidemiology/Belgian Cancer Centre, Brussels, Belgium.
Maryla H TurkotDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Oncology, Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw.
Paulina WieszczyCentral Coordination Center for Cervical Cancer Screening Program, Department of Cancer Prevention, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warszawa.
Kinga MiłoszCentral Coordination Center for Cervical Cancer Screening Program, Department of Cancer Prevention, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warszawa.
Michał F KamińskiCentral Coordination Center for Cervical Cancer Screening Program, Department of Cancer Prevention, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warszawa.
Joanna DidkowskaDepartment of Epidemiology and Cancer Prevention.
Mariusz BidzińskiGynecologic Oncology Department.
Włodzimierz OlszewskiDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Diagnostics, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw.
Mirosław Wielgoś1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw.
Maciej KrzakowskiLung and Thoracic Tumors Department, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw.
Ernest KucharDepartment of Pediatrics with Clinical Assessment Unit, Medical University of Warsaw.
Jan WalewskiDepartment of Lymphoid Malignancies, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute-Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Poland, cervical cancer incidence and mortality still remain considerably higher than in Western European countries or North America. Recent data indicate decreasing trends in women younger than 60 years and stable trends in older women. In this article, we identified obstacles in primary and secondary prevention of cervical cancer in Poland. We analysed local legislation, management structure and organization of cervical cancer prevention in Poland and reviewed solutions available and implemented in other European countries. The main weaknesses include: (i) very low coverage of organized screening; concurrent unregistered opportunistic screening with unknown coverage and high test consumption (ii) suboptimal quality assurance in organized screening and no external quality assurance in opportunistic screening (iii) very low coverage of human papillomavirus vaccination that is not centrally reimbursed (iv) absence of pilot evaluation of (a) interventions that may improve population coverage and (b) performance of new preventive strategies. The proposed solutions are multifaceted and involve: (i) legislative and organizational regulation of cervical cancer screening aimed at comprehensive registration of procedures, data access and quality assurance (ii) pilot testing and implementation of new ways to increase coverage of cervical cancer screening, in particular among older women (iii) pilot evaluation with possible introduction of human papillomavirus-based screening and (iv) inclusion of human papillomavirus vaccination into the reimbursed national immunization program.

Indexed as

AlphapapillomavirusCervix UteriDNA, ViralEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIncidenceInsurance, Health, ReimbursementMass ScreeningMass VaccinationPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesPolandQuality Assurance, Health CareSecondary PreventionUterine Cervical NeoplasmsDNA, ViralPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID31517672
PMCPMC7012359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.