Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32963299›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Screening participation after a false positive result in organized cervical cancer screening: a nationwide register-based cohort study.

Pernille Thordal Larsen, Susanne Fogh Jørgensen, Mette Tranberg, Sisse Helle Njor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Pernille Thordal LarsenDepartment of Public Health Programmes, Randers Regional Hospital, Skovlyvej 15, 8930, Randers NØ, Denmark.
Susanne Fogh JørgensenDepartment of Public Health Programmes, Randers Regional Hospital, Skovlyvej 15, 8930, Randers NØ, Denmark.
Mette TranbergDepartment of Public Health Programmes, Randers Regional Hospital, Skovlyvej 15, 8930, Randers NØ, Denmark.
Sisse Helle NjorDepartment of Public Health Programmes, Randers Regional Hospital, Skovlyvej 15, 8930, Randers NØ, Denmark. sisse.njor@rm.dk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our aim was to investigate whether receiving a false positive (FP) cervical cytology result affected subsequent cervical cancer screening participation. This Danish nationwide register-based cohort study included 502,380 women aged 22.5-45 attending cervical cancer screening in 2012-2014 with a normal (n = 501,003) or FP (n = 1,377) cytology screening result. A FP result was defined as a cervical cytology showing high grade cytological abnormalities followed by a normal or 'Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia grade 1' biopsy result. Women were categorized as subsequent participants if they had a cervical cytology within 24-42 months after their last screening or surveillance test. We compared subsequent participation among women with a normal versus a FP result, using odds ratios including 95% confidence intervals. Participation was slightly higher among women with FP results than among women with normal results (71.5% vs. 69.2%, p = 0.058). After adjustment for age and screening history, women with FP results participated significantly more than women with normal results (OR: 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.35). Women receiving a FP result did not participate less in subsequent cervical cancer screening than women receiving a normal result. In fact, the use of opportunistic screening seemed to be increased among women receiving a FP result.

Indexed as

AdultBiopsyCohort StudiesColposcopyEarly Detection of CancerFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32963299
PMCPMC7508879

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.