ArticleJAMA network open2021
Overuse of Cervical Cancer Screening Tests Among Women With Average Risk in the United States From 2013 to 2014.
Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in over- and under-screening for cervical cancer after EMR implementation in rural China.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Characterizing Cervical Cancer Screening in the US: Preparing for the Era of Self-Collection.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2026Article
- Impact of repeatedly screening negative on cervical cancer risk.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Barriers to the Equitable Implementation of Risk-Based Cervical Cancer Management Guidelines.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Nonadherence to Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines in Commercially Insured US Adults, 2013-2021.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Evaluation of an intelligent digital platform for population management in cervical cancer screening.Cancer biology & medicine · 2025Observational
- Cervical Cancer Screening Overuse Among Women With and Without Disability in the U.S. From 2007 to 2016.AJPM focus · 2025Article
- A Bayesian Logistic Regression Approach to Investigating the Determinants Associated with Never Having Been Screened for Cervical Cancer Amongst Child-Bearing-Age Women in Jordan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- HPV knowledge and non-adherence to cervical cancer screening before and following the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Impact of management guidelines for abnormal cervical cytology on colposcopy procedure rates among young women.Gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- Looking Back, Moving Forward: Challenges and Opportunities for Global Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control.Viruses · 2024Review
- Care cascades following low-value cervical cancer screening in dually enrolled Veterans.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening Rates Among Rural and Urban Females, From 2019 to 2022.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Article
- Reallocating Cervical Cancer Preventive Service Spending from Low- to High-Value Clinical Scenarios.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2023Article
- Cervical cancer screening in Jordan; a review of the past and an outlook to the future - facts and figures.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2023Article
- Article
- Health impacts of COVID-19 disruptions to primary cervical screening by time since last screen: A model-based analysis for current and future disruptions.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2022Article
- The Effect of Surgeon Volume on the Outcome of Laser Vaporization: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Gaps and Opportunities to Improve Prevention of Human Papillomavirus-Related Cancers.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: While cervical cancer screening with cytologic and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has reduced mortality from cervical cancer, overuse of these tests is associated with downstream psychological and medical consequences, as well as significant costs. Guidelines now recommend less frequent testing, although adherence to these recommendations is uncertain. Objective: To determine the frequency of overuse of cervical cancer screening tests. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 2 299 177 women aged 30 to 65 years recorded in the MarketScan database who underwent cervical cancer screening with cervical cytologic testing, cotesting, or primary HPV testing in 2013 through 2014. Women were followed-up for 3 years, and use of repeat testing during this period was noted. Clinical and demographic characteristics associated with overuse of screening and the association between screening and performance of routine gynecologic examinations were recorded. Data were analyzed from June 15 to September 15, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cumulative performance of overuse of cervical cancer screening with repeat cytologic or HPV testing within 36 months of the index screening test. Results: A total of 2 299 177 women with a median (interquartile range) age of 47 (39-54) years were identified. Initial cervical cancer screening consisted of cytologic testing alone in 1 286 179 women (55.9%), cotesting in 991 583 women (43.1%) and HPV testing in 21 415 women (0.9%). The cumulative incidence of repeat cervical cancer screening was 17.7% (95% CI, 17.6%-17.7%) at 12 months, 51.1% (95% CI, 51.0%-51.2%) at 24 months and 65.8% (65.7%-65.8%) at 36 months. Repeat screening was less common in older women (32 198 women [60.2%] aged 60-64 years vs 194 665 women [67.8%] aged 30-39 years; P < .001), women with medical comorbidities (125 197 women [64.1%] with ≥2 comorbidities vs 423 012 women [64.7%] with no comorbidities; P < .001), women screened in 2014 (176 734 women [53.4%] in 2014 vs 555 767 women [69.4%] in 2013; P < .001), and those screened with cotesting (277 032 women [56.9%] for cotesting vs 450 438 [71.2%] for cytologic testing; P < .001). In contrast, overuse of testing was more common in the Northeastern US (143 916 women [68.1%] in the Northeast vs 81 552 women [51.6%] in the West; P < .001), in women with more frequent outpatient visits (238 510 women [71.1%] with ≥6 visits vs 279 412 [58.7%] with ≤2 visits; P < .001). Women with a sexually transmitted infection after their index testing were also more likely to undergo repeat testing (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.21-1.68]). Women who did not undergo repeat screening were significantly less likely to undergo a gynecological exam after the index screening test: during year 2 of follow-up, 657 749 women (96.7%) who underwent repeating screening had a gynecological examination compared with 203 566 women (26.2%) who did not undergo a gynecological examination. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that among commercially insured women with average risk, cervical cancer screening tests were frequently overused.
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.