ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2021
Adherence to National Guidelines on Cervical Screening: A Population-Based Evaluation from a Statewide Registry.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal Adherence to Screening for Colorectal, Cervical, and Lung Cancer in a US Consortium.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of repeatedly screening negative on cervical cancer risk.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Women's compliance with cervical cancer screening recommendations and associated barriers to participation: A cross-sectional analysis.PloS one · 2026Article
- Looking Back, Moving Forward: Challenges and Opportunities for Global Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control.Viruses · 2024Review
- Promise and Perils of Primary HPV Testing.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024Article
- Factors associated with shorter-interval cervical cancer screening for young women in three United States healthcare systems.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- Impact of HPV testing in opportunistic cervical screening: Support for primary HPV screening in the United States.International journal of cancer · 2023Article
- Article
- Trends in the Incidence of Human Papillomavirus-Associated Cancers by County-Level Income and Smoking Prevalence in the United States, 2000-2018.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In 2012, national recommendations for cervical-cancer screening of women aged 30-64 years were quinquennial human papillomavirus and cytology co-testing or triennial cytology. Data from a state-wide surveillance program in New Mexico demonstrated 65.2% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]= 64.6%% to 65.7%) of women screened in 2019 had negative co-test within the last 3 years. Percentages of women screened in 2013, 2016, and 2019 with a prior negative co-test more than 5 and up to 7 years ago were 2.6% (95% CI = 2.2% to 2.9%), 2.1% (95% CI = 1.9% to 2.2%), and 6.5% (95% CI = 6.2% to 6.8%), respectively (2-sided P trend<.001). Percentages of women screened in 2013, 2016, and 2019 with a prior negative cytology more than 5 and up to 7 years ago were 3.8% (95% CI = 3.7% to 3.9%), 9.0% (95% CI = 8.7% to 9.3%), and 14.9% (95% CI = 14.4% to 15.4%), respectively (2-sided P trend<.001). Thus, in 2019, only 12.7% (95% CI = 12.4% to 13.1%) of the 30,215 women aged 30-64 years underwent co-testing and 27.7% (95% CI = 27.1% to 28.3%) of the 18,733 underwent cytology at the recommended interval. The observed under- and over-screening could result in increases in cervical-cancer incidence and harms and costs, respectively.
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.