Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34217411›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine2021

Prioritizing cervical cancer screening services during the COVID-19 pandemic: Response of an academic medical center and a public safety net hospital in California.

George F Sawaya, Hunter K Holt, Robyn Lamar, Misa Perron-Burdick, Karen Smith-McCune

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Impact of COVID-19 on Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

George F SawayaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), United States of America; Obstetrics, Midwifery and Gynecology Clinic, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, United States of America. Electronic address: George.Sawaya@ucsf.edu.
Hunter K HoltDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, UCSF, United States of America.
Robyn LamarDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), United States of America.
Misa Perron-BurdickDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), United States of America; Obstetrics, Midwifery and Gynecology Clinic, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, United States of America.
Karen Smith-McCuneDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), United States of America.
San Francisco General Hospital · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The expeditious diagnosis and treatment of high-grade cervical precancers are fundamental to cervical cancer prevention. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic healthcare systems have at times restricted in-person visits to those deemed urgent. Professional societies provided some guidance to clinicians regarding ways in which traditional cervical cancer screening might be modified, but many gaps remained. To address these gaps, leaders of screening programs at an academic medical center and an urban safety net hospital in California formed a rapid-action committee to provide guidance to its practitioners. Patients were divided into 6 categories corresponding to various stages in the screening process and ranked by risk of underlying high-grade cervical precancer and cancer. Tiers corresponding to the intensity of the local pandemic were constructed, and clinical delays were lengthened for the lowest-risk patients as tiers escalated. The final product was a management grid designed to escalate and de-escalate with changes in the local epidemiology of the COVID-19 pandemic. While this effort resulted in substantial delays in clinical screening services as mandated by the healthcare systems, the population effects of delaying on both cervical cancer outcomes as well as the beneficial effects related to decreasing transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 have yet to be elucidated.

Indexed as

COVID-19Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsAcademic Medical CentersCaliforniaEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansPandemicsSafety-net ProvidersSARS-CoV-2Cervical cancer screeningConsensus guidelinesCOVID-19

Identifiers

PMID34217411
PMCPMC8241652
OpenAlexW3178682911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.