Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33072179›Full record

ArticleInfectious agents and cancer2020

Designing low-cost, accurate cervical screening strategies that take into account COVID-19: a role for self-sampled HPV typing2.

Kayode Olusegun Ajenifuja, Jerome Belinson, Andrew Goldstein, Kanan T Desai, Silvia de Sanjose, Mark Schiffman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infectious agents and cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Kayode Olusegun AjenifujaOAUTHC, Ile Ife, Nigeria.
Jerome BelinsonWomen's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH USA.
Andrew GoldsteinCenters for Vulvovaginal Disease, Washington, DC USA.
Kanan T DesaiDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, 9609 Medical Center Drive Room 6E544, Rockville, MD 20850 USA.
Silvia de SanjoseDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, 9609 Medical Center Drive Room 6E544, Rockville, MD 20850 USA.
Mark SchiffmanDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Genetics Branch, 9609 Medical Center Drive Room 6E544, Rockville, MD 20850 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4625-2508
National Cancer Institute · USCleveland Clinic · USObafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex · NGThe Centers · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe propose an economical cervical screening research and implementation strategy designed to take into account the typically slow natural history of cervical cancer and the severe but hopefully temporary impact of COVID-19. The commentary introduces the practical validation of some critical components of the strategy, described in three manuscripts detailing recent project results in Asia and Africa.The main phases of a cervical screening program are 1) primary screening of women in the general population, 2) triage testing of the small minority of women that screen positive to determine need for treatment, and 3) treatment of triage-positive women thought to be at highest risk of precancer or even cancer. In each phase, attention must now be paid to safety in relation to SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The new imperatives of the COVID-19 pandemic support self-sampled HPV testing as the primary cervical screening method. Most women can be reassured for several years by a negative test performed on a self-sample collected at home, without need of clinic visit and speculum examination. The advent of relatively inexpensive, rapid and accurate HPV DNA testing makes it possible to return screening results from self-sampling very soon after specimen collection, minimizing loss to follow-up. Partial HPV typing provides important risk stratification useful for triage of HPV-positive women. A second "triage" test is often useful to guide management. In lower-resource settings, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) is still proposed but it is inaccurate and poorly reproducible, misclassifying the risk stratification gained by primary HPV testing. A deep-learning based approach to recognizing cervical precancer, adaptable to a smartphone camera, is being validated to improve VIA performance. The advent and approval of thermal ablation permits quick, affordable and safe, immediate treatment at the triage clinic of the majority of HPV-positive, triage-positive women.

conclusionsOverall, only a small percentage of women in cervical screening programs need to attend the hospital clinic for a surgical procedure, particularly when screening is targeted to the optimal age range for detection of precancer rather than older ages with decreased visual screening performance and higher risks of hard-to-treat outcomes including invasive cancer.

Indexed as

Cervical screeningCOVID-19HPVSelf-samplingTriage

Identifiers

PMID33072179
PMCPMC7556607
OpenAlexW3092906323

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.