ReviewCancers2019
Recommendations Favoring Anal Cytology as a Method for Anal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- The Diagnostic Value of p16/Ki67 Dual Immunostaining for Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia: A Meta-Analysis.American journal of men's healthPooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Home-Based Self-Sampling vs Clinician Sampling for Anal Precancer Screening.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Impact of anal precancer screening on patient-reported outcomes among men-who-have-sex-with-men living with HIV: a scoping review.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2026Article
- Therapeutic Landscape of HPV-Associated Cancers: From Mechanisms and Conventional Approaches to Future Innovations.Cancers · 2026Review
- Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Coloproctology: A Review of Emerging Technologies and Clinical Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Recent and projected incidence trends and risk of anal cancer among people with HIV in North America.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
- Vulval premalignant lesions: a review article.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2024Article
- Optical imaging for screening and early cancer diagnosis in low-resource settings.Nature reviews bioengineering · 2024Article
- Psychometric Validation of the Patient Anal Cancer Knowledge Scale (PACKS) in a Cohort of Black and Hispanic/Latino Sexual and Gender Diverse Young Adults.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Exploring Circulating Tumor DNA (CtDNA) and Its Role in Early Detection of Cancer: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2023Review
- Integration of human papillomavirus associated anal cancer screening into HIV care and treatment program in Pakistan: perceptions of policymakers, managers, and care providers.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Global burden of HPV-attributable squamous cell carcinoma of the anus in 2020, according to sex and HIV status: A worldwide analysis.International journal of cancer · 2023Article
- Detection of Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Anal Squamous Cell Carcinoma on Colonoscopy.ACG case reports journal · 2022Article
- Would Chinese Men Who Have Sex With Men Take Up Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Screening as an Alternative Prevention Strategy to HPV Vaccination?Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Screening for Anal Dysplasia in Adolescent and Young Adult Men Who Have Sex With Men Living With HIV, a Review of Current Recommendations.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Anal dysplasia screening by Raman-enhanced spectroscopy can inform clinical diagnosis of cervical neoplasia.Lasers in medical science · 2021Article
- Screening with Anal Cytology in Colombia: Initial Experience and Need for High-Resolution Anoscopy.The Journal of surgical research · 2021Article
- Prevention and Screening of HPV Malignancies.Seminars in radiation oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinicians are increasingly facing the decision of performing anal cancer screening in high-risk groups. Anal cytology is commonly the first approach. We systematically reviewed recommendations favoring anal cytology for anal cancer screening. Three databases were searched: PubMed, Scopus, and Embase, from January 2007 to 12 September 2019. The references cited by the retrieved articles and the websites of relevant organizations were also searched without language restrictions. Studies reporting guidelines from regional or national societies, institutes, or groups were included. Eight papers met the inclusion criteria and were selected, five were from the United States of America (USA) and three from Europe. There were no national recommendations published. There was one guideline specifically for solid-organ transplant recipients. The other seven targeted HIV-positive patients, with HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM) included as a screening group in all of these. Two recommendations favored screening in all HIV-positive patients. Five recommendations targeting HIV-positive patients made considerations about the cytology follow-up, recommending at least annual cytology in case of a normal result, and in case of squamous cytological abnormalities, a referral for anoscopy/high-resolution anoscopy. There were no recommendations for upper and lower age limits for screening. In conclusion, several societies recommend anal cancer screening using anal cytology in HIV-positive MSM patients. There is a lack of screening recommendations for other high-risk groups, with only one society recommending screening in transplant recipients.
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.