ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2021
Invited Commentary: Rethinking Cervical Cancer Elimination in Terms of Lifetime Risk Rather Than Arbitrarily Defined Age-Standardized Incidence Rates.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-based impact projections of single-dose human papillomavirus vaccination in India: a modelling study.The Lancet. Oncology · 2022Article
- Global estimates of expected and preventable cervical cancers among girls born between 2005 and 2014: a birth cohort analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2021Article
- The correlation between high-risk HPV infection and precancerous lesions and cervical cancer.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In their accompanying article, Vänskä et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(4):506-514) provide us with cohort lifetime risks of cervical cancer attributable to different types of human papillomavirus in Sweden. We argue that a standardized lifetime risk such as those calculated by Vänskä et al. might be a more appropriate public health target for cervical cancer elimination than age-standardized incidence rates. Age standardization to an arbitrary standard age distribution implies an implicit value choice regarding the weight of different age groups for which we find little moral justification. Conversely, a standardized lifetime risk uses standard life expectancy as a weight, corresponding to the likelihood that cervical cancer would impact a woman and prevent her from pursuing opportunities within a standard life span. Based on the data from Vänskä et al., a standardized lifetime risk of 129-250 cervical cancers per 100,000 women born could be an aspirational alternative public health target for cervical cancer elimination as a public health problem, complementary to the World Health Organization's arbitrary draft target of 4 cervical cancers per 100,000 age-standardized woman-years.
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.