Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34292987›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

Population-based utility scores for HPV infection and cervical squamous cell carcinoma among Australian Indigenous women.

Xiangqun Ju, Karen Canfell, Kirsten Howard, Gail Garvey, Joanne Hedges, Megan Smith, Lisa Jamieson

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 54% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in Indigenous people: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Xiangqun JuAdelaide Dental School, Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4759-3918
Karen CanfellCancer Council of NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Kirsten HowardSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Gail GarveyMenzies School of Health Research, Tiwi, Australia.
Joanne HedgesAdelaide Dental School, Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Megan SmithCancer Council of NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Lisa JamiesonAdelaide Dental School, Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
The University of Adelaide · AUThe University of Sydney · AUMenzies School of Health Research · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWorking in partnership with Indigenous communities in South Australia, we aimed to develop, pilot test and estimate utility scores for health states relating to cervical cancer screening, precancer, and invasive cervical cancer and precancer/cancer treatment among Indigenous women.

methodsDevelopment and pilot testing of hypothetical cervical cancer health states, specifically through the lens of being an Indigenous Australian woman, was done with an Indigenous Reference Group in conjunction with five female Indigenous community members. Six health states were developed. These included: (1) Screened: cytology normal; (2) human papillomaviruses (HPV) positive with cytology normal; (3) low grade cytology (LSIL);(4) high grade cytology (HSIL); (5) early stage cervical cancer and; (6) later stage cervical cancer. Utility scores were calculated using a two-stage standard gamble approach among a large cohort of Indigenous Australian women taking part in a broader study involving oral HPV infection. The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the rank, percentage of respondents with a utility = 1 (perfect health) and utility score of each health state was summarised. Mean (SD) and medians and inter-quartile range (IQR) over 12 months and lifetime duration were calculated. Potential differences by age and residential location were assessed using the Wilcox Sum Rank test.

resultsData was obtained from 513 Indigenous women aged 19+ years. Mean utility scores were higher for the four non-cancer health states than for invasive cervical cancer states (p-values <0.05). Lower mean utility scores were observed for late stage cervical cancer, with 0.69 at 12 months and 0.70 for lifetime duration (Intra-class correlation coefficients = 0.425). Higher utility scores were observed for the four non-cancer health states among non-metropolitan participants (ranged from 0.93 to 0.98) compared with metropolitan participants (ranged from 0.86 to 0.93) (p-values<0.05).

conclusionAmong a large cohort of Indigenous Australian women, the reduction in quality of life (which utilities reflect) was perceived to be greater with increasing severity of cervical cancer health states. There were differences observed by geographic location, with positive cervical screening and precursor cancer-related quality of life being much higher among non-metropolitan-dwelling participants. These utility values, from one of the largest such studies ever performed in any population will be uniquely able to inform modelled evaluations of the benefits and costs of cervical cancer prevention interventions in Indigenous women.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAdultAustraliaAustralian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesCarcinoma, Squamous CellFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34292987
PMCPMC8298063
OpenAlexW3186342388

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.