ArticleRevista de saude publica2020
Premature mortality due to cervical cancer: study of interrupted time series.
Article in Revista de saude publica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Female homicides in Brazil before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time-series analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Suicide Mortality in Brazil: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Mortality trends of breast and cervical cancer in Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul: an analysis by age and schooling, 1999-2019.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2023Article
- Evaluation of histopathological examinations of the cervix diagnosed as "other neoplasms" on the Cancer Information System, Brazil, 2013-2020: a descriptive study.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo verify the effect of the Pact for Health on premature mortality (30-69 years) attributed to cervical cancer in Brazil and its macroregions, using interrupted time series analysis.
methodsSegmented regression was used to assess "change in level" and "change in trend" in premature mortality rates attributed to cervical cancer considering the post-Pact period (2010-2018), controlling by the pre-Pact period (1998-2006). Understanding the triennium 2007-2009 as essential for the adoption and implementation of the policy, it was excluded from the main modeling, but assessed in the sensitivity analysis.
resultsFrom 1998 to 2018, there were more than 119,000 deaths due to cervical cancer in women aged 30 to 69 years in Brazil. The Northern region experienced the highest rates (> 20 per 100,000). Comparing with baseline (1998-2006), segmented regression showed a progressive increase in changing trend from cervical cancer deaths in Brazil as a whole (coefficient = 0.513; 95%CI 0.430 to 0.596) and in the Southeast region (coefficient = 0.515; 95%CI 0.358 to 0.674), South region (coefficient = 0.925; 95%CI 0.642 to 1.208), and Midwest region (coefficient = 0.590; 95%CI 0.103 to 1.077). The Northeast region presented the most promising effects with immediate reduction in change level (-0.635; 95%CI -1.177 to -0.092) and progressive reduction in the changing trend of premature deaths (coefficient= -0.151; 95%CI -0.231 to -0.007).
conclusionsPremature mortality rates due to cervical cancer are high in Brazil and its macroregions. This interrupted time series was not able to reveal the effectiveness of initiatives related to the Pact for Health on premature deaths from cervical cancer nationally and in all macroregions equally. The best results are restricted to the Northeast region.
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.