ArticleJournal of lower genital tract disease2020
Incorporating Stakeholder Feedback in Guidelines Development for the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests.
Article in Journal of lower genital tract disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2020Guideline
- Facilitators of and barriers to the clinical implementation of evidence-based nursing guidelines based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: A multisite survey.International journal of nursing sciences · 2026Article
- Community engagement in health guidelines and other normative products: a methodological review.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025Review
- Factors associated with willingness to perform expedited excisional treatment for patients at high risk for cervical precancer.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2025Article
- Delivering Guideline-Concordant Care for Patients With High-Risk HPV and Normal Cytologic Findings.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Cervical cancer prevention in Burkina Faso: a stakeholder's collaboration for the development of awareness messaging.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Confusion and anxiety in between abnormal cervical cancer screening results and colposcopy: "The land of the unknown".Patient education and counseling · 2023Article
- Article
- Cervical Cancer Risk and Prevention Practices Among Sexual Minority Women with Criminal-Legal System Involvement.Annals of LGBTQ public and population health · 2022Article
- Assessing Physician Adherence to Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management of Abnormal Screening Results.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2020Article
- An Introduction to the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2020Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines in the Postvaccination Era: Review of the Literature.Journal of oncology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines present a paradigm shift from results- to risk-based management. Patient and provider factors can affect guideline adoption. We sought feedback from stakeholders to inform guideline development. MATERIALS AND
methodsTo solicit provider feedback, we surveyed attendees at the 2019 ASCCP annual meeting regarding readiness to adopt proposed changes and used a web-based public comment period to gauge agreement/disagreement with preliminary guidelines. We elicited patient feedback via a brief survey on preferences around proposed recommendations for treatment without biopsy. Surveys and public comment included both closed-ended and free-text items. Quantitative results were analyzed using descriptive statistics; qualitative results were analyzed using content analysis. Results were incorporated into guideline development in real time.
resultsSurveys indicated that 98% of providers currently evaluate their patients' past results to determine management; 88% felt formally incorporating history into management would represent an improvement in care. Most providers supported expedited treatment without biopsy: 22% currently perform expedited treatment and 60% were willing to do so. Among patients, 41% preferred expedited treatment, 32% preferred biopsy before treatment, and the remainder were undecided. Responses from the public comment period included agreement/disagreement with preliminary guidelines, reasons for disagreement, and suggestions for improvement.
conclusionsStakeholder feedback was incorporated into the development of the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines. Proposed recommendations with less than two-thirds agreement in the public comment period were considered for revision. Findings underscore the importance of stakeholder feedback in developing guidelines that meet the needs of patients and 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.