Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34854432›Full record

ReviewThe Indian journal of medical research2021

Screening for cervical cancer: Choices & dilemmas.

Shalini Rajaram, Bindiya Gupta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Indian journal of medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

2 authors.

Shalini RajaramDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.
Bindiya GuptaUniversity College of Medical Sciences & Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women in the world. To eliminate cervical cancer by 2030, the World Health Organization has given the target of 70 per cent coverage of twice lifetime screening. A multitude of screening methods are available, including cytology, human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing and visual inspection tests. Precision tests, including molecular and protein biomarkers such as DNA methylation, p16 immunostaining, and HPV mRNA testing help to enhance specificity of the screening. Worldwide HPV DNA testing with or without cytology is used as a screening method of choice, while in resource-poor settings, visual inspection tests are recommended. The major hurdle is a uniform and systematic implementation with a recall method in the population. Besides, controversies still exist regarding strategies to manage HPV-positive women and developing guidelines to screen the vaccinated population.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPapillomaviridaeVaginal SmearsBiomarkercervical cancer screeningcervical cytologyDNA methylationHPV DNA testingp16/Ki 67 dual stainingVIA

Identifiers

PMID34854432
PMCPMC9131755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.