Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34526301›Full record

SynthesisCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2021

Exposure Definition in Case-Control Studies of Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Literature Review.

Alejandra Castanon, Aruna Kamineni, K Miriam Elfström, Anita W W Lim, Peter Sasieni

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Article
  2. Article
  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

5 authors.

Alejandra CastanonKing's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Cancer Prevention Group, Innovation Hub, Guys Cancer Centre, Guys Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London, United Kingdom. alejandra.castanon@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1101-6548
Aruna KamineniKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.ORCID 0000-0002-0763-989X
K Miriam ElfströmInstitutionen för Laboratoriemedicin, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anita W W LimKing's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Cancer Prevention Group, Innovation Hub, Guys Cancer Centre, Guys Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London, United Kingdom.
Peter SasieniKing's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Cancer Prevention Group, Innovation Hub, Guys Cancer Centre, Guys Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

PROSPR METRICS CISNET Collaboration Investigating Impact of Structural Racism/Discrimination on Cervical Screening Moonshot SupplementUM1CA221940 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI CHUBAK, JESSICA, HAAS, JENNIFER S · 2018 to 2023
$15.9M
Cancer Research UK 25356Cancer Research UK 27047Cancer Research UK C8162/A27047NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA221940
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The first step in evaluating the effectiveness of cervical screening is defining exposure to screening. Our aim was to describe the spectrum of screening exposure definitions used in studies of the effectiveness of cervical screening. This systematic review included case-control studies in a population-based screening setting. Outcome was incidence of cervical cancer. Three electronic databases were searched from January 1, 2012 to December 6, 2018. Articles prior to 2012 were identified from a previous review. The qualitative synthesis focused on describing screening exposure definitions reported in the literature and the methodologic differences that could have an impact on the association between screening and cervical cancer. Forty-one case-control studies were included. Six screening exposure definitions were identified. Cervical cancer risk on average decreased by 66% when screening exposure was defined as ever tested, by 77% by time since last negative test, and by 79% after two or more previous tests. Methodologic differences included composition of the reference group and whether diagnostic and/or symptomatic tests were excluded from the analysis. Consensus guidelines to standardize exposure definitions are needed to ensure evaluations of cervical cancer screening can accurately measure the impact of transitioning from cytology to human papillomavirus-based screening and to allow comparisons between programs.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34526301
PMCPMC8643309

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.