Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33571319›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Histological outcomes in HPV-screened elderly women in Denmark.

Gry St-Martin, Petra Hall Viborg, Ane Birgitte Telén Andersen, Berit Andersen, Jette Christensen, Dorthe Ejersbo, Hanne Nørgaard Heje, Kirsten Marie Jochumsen, Tonje Johansen, Lise Grupe Larsen and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Cervical cancer screening strategies in women 65 years and older in the human papillomavirus era: A systematic review and meta-analysis of human papillomavirus-based testing and self-sampling approaches.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. A cervical screening initiative for elderly women in Denmark.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023
    Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

13 authors.

Gry St-MartinCenter for Epidemiological research, Nykøbing Falster Hospital, Nykøbing Falster, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-4981-1125
Petra Hall ViborgThe Danish Clinical Registries (RKKP), Frederiksberg/Aarhus N, Denmark.
Ane Birgitte Telén AndersenThe Danish Clinical Registries (RKKP), Frederiksberg/Aarhus N, Denmark.
Berit AndersenDepartment of Public Health Programmes, Randers Regional Hospital, Randers, Denmark.
Jette ChristensenDepartment of Pathology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Dorthe EjersboDepartment of Pathology, Vejle, Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark.
Hanne Nørgaard HejeGeneral Practice, Århus C, Denmark.
Kirsten Marie JochumsenDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Odense University Hospital, Odense C, Denmark.
Tonje JohansenDepartment of Pathology, Randers Regional Hospital, Randers NØ, Denmark.
Lise Grupe LarsenDepartment of Pathology, Zealand University Hospital, Naestved, Denmark.
Elsebeth LyngeCenter for Epidemiological research, Nykøbing Falster Hospital, Nykøbing Falster, Denmark.
Reza Rafiolsadat SerizawaDepartment of Pathology, Hvidovre Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Marianne WaldstrømDepartment of Pathology, Vejle, Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDanish women exit cervical cancer screening at age 65 years, but 23% of cervical cancer cases occur beyond this age. In addition, due to gradual implementation of cervical cancer screening, older women are underscreened by today´s standards. A one-time screening with HPV test was therefore offered to Danish women born before 1948.

methodsRegister based study reporting histology diagnoses and conizations in women found HPV positive in the one-time screening. Number and proportion of women with severe or non-severe histology results were calculated for screened and HPV-positive women by age group or region of residence. Number of women with biopsy and/or conization per case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) or CIN3+ were also calculated by age groups and region.

results4,479 (4.1% of screened women) had positive HPV test. 94% of these had one or more additional tests. 2,785 (62%) of HPV-positive women had histology results, and conization was performed in 1,076 (24% of HPV-positive and 1% of all screened women). HPV positivity and CIN3+ detection varied little between regions, but the proportions of HPV positive women undergoing histology varied between regions from 40% to 86% and the proportion with conization from 13% to 36%. Correspondingly, the number of histologies and conizations per CIN3+ detected varied from 5.9 to 11.2 and 1.8 to 4.7, respectively. In total, 514 CIN2+ (0.47% of screened women, 11% of HPV-positive) and 337 CIN3+ (0.31% of screened women, 7.5% of HPV-positive) were diagnosed, including 37 cervical cancer cases. DISCUSSION: HPV screening of insufficiently screened birth cohorts can potentially prevent morbidity and mortality from cervical cancer but longer follow-up is needed to see if cancer incidence declines in the screened women in the coming years. Management strategies differed among regions which influenced the proportions undergoing biopsy/conization.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyDenmarkEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHuman papillomavirus 18HumansIncidencePapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID33571319
PMCPMC7877658

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.