Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32885045›Full record

ArticleMDM policy & practice

Discussing Cervical Cancer Screening Options: Outcomes to Guide Conversations Between Patients and Providers.

Hunter K Holt, Shalini Kulasingam, Erinn C Sanstead, Fernando Alarid-Escudero, Karen Smith-McCune, Steven E Gregorich, Michael J Silverberg, Megan J Huchko, Miriam Kuppermann, George F Sawaya

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in MDM policy & practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Hunter K HoltDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6833-8372
Shalini KulasingamEpidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Erinn C SansteadEpidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Fernando Alarid-EscuderoDrug Policy Program, Center for Research and Teaching in Economics (CIDE), Aguascalientes, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5076-1172
Karen Smith-McCuneDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Steven E GregorichDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Michael J SilverbergDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, California.
Megan J HuchkoObstetrics & Gynecology and Global Health, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Miriam KuppermannDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California.
George F SawayaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California.

Funding

Using comparative effectiveness analyses to optimize cervical cancer screeningR01CA169093 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SAWAYA, GEORGE F · 2013 to 2016
$2.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA169093
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

cervical cancer screeninghigh-risk HPV DNA testingPap smearshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID32885045
PMCPMC7440733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.