ArticlePreventive medicine2021
Clinical follow-up practices after cervical cancer screening by co-testing: A population-based study of adherence to U.S. guideline recommendations.
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 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Nationwide Study on the Cervical Cancer Screening Pathway in Estonia.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
- Self-collection for primary HPV screening using dry swabs: a review of clinical performance, laboratory considerations, and patient preferences.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Review
- Black US women share their experiences with follow-up after abnormal cervical cancer screening.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Factors associated with cervical cancer screening among women attending maternal child health clinics in Kenya.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Disparities in cervical cancer elimination time frames in the United States: a comparative modeling study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Factors associated with willingness to perform expedited excisional treatment for patients at high risk for cervical precancer.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2025Article
- Delivering Guideline-Concordant Care for Patients With High-Risk HPV and Normal Cytologic Findings.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Cervical Cancer 2010-2019: An Upper Midwest Catchment of 40,000 Square Miles.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2025Article
- Accelerating progress to reduce the cancer burden through prevention and control in the United States.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Utility of colposcopy for the screening and management of cervical cancer in Africa: a cross-sectional analysis of providers' training and practices.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Association Between Clinician Confidence and Making Guideline-Recommended Decisions in the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of follow-up colposcopy procedures after abnormal cervical screening result across a statewide study in Mississippi.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2024Article
- Assessing Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results and Concordance with Guideline Recommendations in Three US Healthcare Settings.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024Article
- Lives Saved Through Increasing Adherence to Follow-Up After Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results.O&G open · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Follow-up Colposcopy Procedures After Abnormal Cervical Screening Result Across a Statewide Study in Mississippi.Research square · 2024Article
- Investigating the role of Epstein-Barr virus and human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 co-infections in cervical disease of Iranian women.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Failure to follow-up women after abnormal cervical screening could lead to cervical cancers, yet little is known about adherence to recommended follow-up after abnormal co-testing [cytology and high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing]. We documented clinical management following cervical screening by co-testing in a diverse population-based setting. A statewide surveillance program for cervical screening, diagnosis, and treatment was used to investigate all cytology, hrHPV and biopsy reports in the state of New Mexico from January 2015 through August 2019. Guideline-adherent follow-up after co-testing required 1) biopsy within 6 months for low-grade cytology if positive for hrHPV, for high-grade cytology irrespective of hrHPV, and for HPV 16/18 positive results irrespective of cytology and; 2) repeat co-testing within 18 months if cytology was negative and hrHPV test was positive (excluding types 16/18). Screening co-tests (2015-2017) for 164,522 women were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan Meier curves, and pairwise comparisons between groups. Guideline adherence was highest when both cytology and hrHPV tests were abnormal, ranging from 61.7% to 80.3%. Guideline-adherent follow-up was lower for discordant results. Women with high-grade cytology were less likely to receive a timely biopsy when hrHPV-testing was negative (48.1%) versus positive (83.3%) (p < 0.001). Only 47.9% of women received biopsies following detection of HPV16/18 with normal cytology, and 30.8% received no follow-up within 18-months. Among women with hrHPV-positive normal cytology without evidence of HPV 16/18 infection, 51% received no follow-up within 18 months. Provider education and creation of robust recall systems may help ensure appropriate follow-up of abnormal screening results.
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.