ArticleJournal of lower genital tract disease2020
Assessing Physician Adherence to Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management of Abnormal Screening Results.
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in over- and under-screening for cervical cancer after EMR implementation in rural China.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Developing and testing a mobile application for imparting knowledge: the positive birth experience guideline to midwifery students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Association Between Clinician Confidence and Making Guideline-Recommended Decisions in the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- Impact of management guidelines for abnormal cervical cytology on colposcopy procedure rates among young women.Gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- Implementation of WHO guidelines for cervical cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment: knowledge and perceptions of health providers from Argentina.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Assessing Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results and Concordance with Guideline Recommendations in Three US Healthcare Settings.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024Article
- Association Between Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines and Preterm Delivery Among Females Aged 18 to 24 Years.JAMA health forum · 2023Article
- Clinician practices, knowledge, and attitudes regarding primary human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: A mixed-methods study in Indiana.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- Unindicated cervical cancer screening in adolescent females within a large healthcare system in the United States.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2021Article
- Primary Human Papillomavirus Test Uptake and Cervical Cancer Screening Trends in the Midwest, United States.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to survey obstetrician-gynecologists' cervical cancer screening practices and management of cervical abnormalities to ascertain adherence to guidelines.
methodsFrom January to July 2019, obstetrician-gynecologists at 5 St. Louis area hospitals were surveyed online about cervical cancer screening and management practices through 13 clinical vignettes. Survey scores and the American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) app use were compared using Mann-Whitney tests.
resultsWhen screening 30- to 65-year-old participants, 114 (98%) of the 116 total participants used co-testing, but only 71 (61%) screened at 5-year intervals. None used primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. For 21- to 29-year-old participants, 17 (15%) screened with annual cytology, whereas 14 (12%) used annual or every 3-year co-testing. Forty eight (41%) screened younger than 21 years, regardless of risk factors or only if immunocompromised. Eleven (9%) continued screening after total hysterectomy for benign indications. Only 2 (2%) responded to all clinical vignettes in adherence to guidelines. More than 30% of participants would pursue unnecessary HPV testing and/or loop electrosurgical excision procedure for persistent low-grade cytology. Fifty eight (48%) incorrectly reported hysterectomy as management for adenocarcinoma in situ on biopsy. Participants would undertreat young women with high-grade abnormalities including high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 (48, 41%) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1 (65, 56%). Forty one (35%) reported exiting women from screening prematurely. The median score for participants using the ASCCP app was significantly greater than those who did not (79% vs 71%, p = .002).
conclusionsMidwestern obstetrician-gynecologists' adherence to the guidelines for cervical cancer screening and management of abnormal results is suboptimal. Although co-testing for women aged 30-65 years has been broadly adopted, primary HPV testing has not. Physicians overscreen, overtreat low-grade lesions, and undertreat high-grade lesions in young women.
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.