Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33914050›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Overuse of Cervical Cancer Screening Tests Among Women With Average Risk in the United States From 2013 to 2014.

Jason D Wright, Ling Chen, Ana I Tergas, Alexander Melamed, Caryn M St Clair, June Y Hou, Fady Khoury-Collado, Allison Gockley, Melissa Accordino, Dawn L Hershman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Characterizing Cervical Cancer Screening in the US: Preparing for the Era of Self-Collection.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2026
    Article
  3. Impact of repeatedly screening negative on cervical cancer risk.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jason D WrightColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York.
Ling ChenColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York.
Ana I TergasColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York.
Alexander MelamedColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York.
Caryn M St ClairColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York.
June Y HouColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York.
Fady Khoury-ColladoColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York.
Allison GockleyColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York.
Melissa AccordinoColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York.
Dawn L HershmanColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York.
Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer CenterColumbia University · USNewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · US

Funding

Tumor Biology and Microenvironment ProgramP30CA013696 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI Anil K Rustgi · 1985 to 2026
$115.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA013696
6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAgedEarly Detection of CancerEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansMedical OveruseMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsPractice Guidelines as TopicUnited StatesUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID33914050
PMCPMC8085723
OpenAlexW3159040496

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.