Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34277540›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2021

A Framework for Cervical Cancer Elimination in Low-and-Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review and Roadmap for Interventions and Research Priorities.

Michelle B Shin, Gui Liu, Nelly Mugo, Patricia J Garcia, Darcy W Rao, Cara J Broshkevitch, Linda O Eckert, Leeya F Pinder, Judith N Wasserheit, Ruanne V Barnabas

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. The FemTech revolution: Unlocking the potential of new technology for optimizing pregnancy outcomes in low- and middle-income countries and remote areas.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  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 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Michelle B ShinSchool of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Gui LiuDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Nelly MugoDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Patricia J GarciaDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Darcy W RaoDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Cara J BroshkevitchDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Linda O EckertDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Leeya F PinderDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Judith N WasserheitDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Ruanne V BarnabasDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
University of Washington · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USKenya Medical Research Institute · KEUniversidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia · PEUniversity of Zambia · ZM

Funding

NCCIH Supplement to NCATS/CTSA Program for KL2 Scholars - M. SoddersKL2TR002317 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Christy Michelle McKinney · 2017 to 2026
$14.5M
NRSA Training CoreTL1TR002318 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Megan Moore · 2017 to 2026
$8.4M
Comparative Modeling to Inform Cervical Cancer Control Policies: USPSTF SupplementU01CA253912 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI BARNABAS, RUANNE VANESSA, CANFELL, KAREN · 2020 to 2024
$7.9M
Comparative Modeling to Inform Cervical Cancer Control PoliciesU01CA199334 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI BARNABAS, RUANNE VANESSA, CANFELL, KAREN · 2015 to 2019
$6.4M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002317NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002318NCI NIH HHS U01 CA199334NCI NIH HHS U01 CA253912
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The World Health Organization announced an ambitious call for cervical cancer elimination worldwide. With existing prevention and treatment modalities, cervical cancer elimination is now within reach for high-income countries. Despite limited financing and capacity constraints in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), prevention and control efforts can be supported through integrated services and new technologies. We conducted this scoping review to outline a roadmap toward cervical cancer elimination in LMICs and highlight evidence-based interventions and research priorities to accelerate cervical cancer elimination. We reviewed and synthesized literature from 2010 to 2020 on primary and secondary cervical cancer prevention strategies. In addition, we conducted expert interviews with gynecologic and infectious disease providers, researchers, and LMIC health officials. Using these data, we developed a logic model to summarize the current state of science and identified evidence gaps and priority research questions for each prevention strategy. The logic model for cervical cancer elimination maps the needs for improved collaboration between policy makers, production and supply, healthcare systems, providers, health workers, and communities. The model articulates responsibilities for stakeholders and visualizes processes to increase access to and coverage of prevention methods. We discuss the challenges of contextual factors and highlight innovation needs. Effective prevention methods include HPV vaccination, screening using visual inspection and HPV testing, and thermocoagulation. However, vaccine coverage remains low in LMICs. New strategies, including single-dose vaccination could enhance impact. Loss to follow-up and treatment delays could be addressed by improved same-day screen-and-treat technologies. We provide a practical framework to guide cervical cancer elimination in LMICs. The scoping review highlights existing and innovative strategies, unmet needs, and collaborations required to achieve elimination across implementation contexts.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus VaccinesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansResearchVaccinationPapillomavirus Vaccinescervical cancercervical cancer eliminationcervical cancer preventioncervical cancer screeninghuman papillomavirus vaccinationscoping review

Identifiers

PMID34277540
PMCPMC8281011
OpenAlexW3185319602

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.