Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33388083›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2021

Screening for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer: protocol for systematic reviews to inform Canadian recommendations.

Allison Gates, Jennifer Pillay, Donna Reynolds, Rob Stirling, Gregory Traversy, Christina Korownyk, Ainsley Moore, Guylène Thériault, Brett D Thombs, Julian Little and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Exploring the role of the oncology nurse in cervical cancer screening programs during times of transition.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

15 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Allison GatesAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada. agates1@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-0845-9786
Jennifer PillayAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Donna ReynoldsDepartment of Family and Community Medicine and Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Rob StirlingCentre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Equity, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Gregory TraversyCentre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Equity, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Christina KorownykDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Ainsley MooreFamily Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Guylène ThériaultDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Brett D ThombsFaculty of Medicine, McGill University and Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada.
Julian LittleSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Catherine PopadiukFaculty of Medicine, Memorial University, St. John's, Canada.
Dirk van NiekerkDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Diana Keto-LambertAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Ben VandermeerAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Lisa HartlingAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
University of Alberta · CAPublic Health Agency of Canada · CAJewish General Hospital · CAMcGill University · CAMcMaster University · CAMemorial University of Newfoundland · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening in primary care for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer by systematically reviewing evidence of (a) effectiveness; (b) test accuracy; (c) individuals' values and preferences; and (d) strategies aimed at improving screening rates.

methodsDe novo reviews will be conducted to evaluate effectiveness and to assess values and preferences. For test accuracy and strategies to improve screening rates, we will integrate studies from existing systematic reviews with search updates to the present. Two Cochrane reviews will provide evidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes from the conservative management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (except for individuals' values and preferences, where Medline, Scopus, and EconLit will be searched) via peer-reviewed search strategies and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. We will search ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. Two reviewers will screen potentially eligible studies and agree on those to include. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another. Two reviewers will independently assess risk of bias and reach consensus. Where possible and suitable, we will pool studies via meta-analysis. We will compare accuracy data per outcome and per comparison using the Rutter and Gatsonis hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model and report relative sensitivities and specificities. Findings on values and preferences will be synthesized using a narrative synthesis approach and thematic analysis, depending on study designs. Two reviewers will appraise the certainty of evidence for all outcomes using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and come to consensus. DISCUSSION: The publication of guidance on screening in primary care for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer by the Task Force in 2013 focused on cytology. Since 2013, new studies using human papillomavirus tests for cervical screening have been published that will improve our understanding of screening in primary care settings. This review will inform updated recommendations based on currently available studies and address key evidence gaps noted in our previous review.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsCanadaEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMeta-Analysis as TopicPregnancyReview Literature as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaGuidelineMass screeningPrimary health careSystematic reviewUterine cervical neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID33388083
PMCPMC7777363
OpenAlexW3116919441

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.