Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35121607›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Timeliness of diagnosis of breast and cervical cancers and associated factors in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

Chukwudi A Nnaji, Elochukwu F Ezenwankwo, Paul Kuodi, Fiona M Walter, Jennifer Moodley

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Management ofEcancermedicalscience · 2024
    Review
  14. The Cervical Cancer Treatment Gap in Mexico UnderHealth systems and reform · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Chukwudi A NnajiWomen's Health Research Unit, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town Faculty of Health Sciences, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa nnjchu001@myuct.ac.za.ORCID 0000-0002-4132-1922
Elochukwu F EzenwankwoWomen's Health Research Unit, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town Faculty of Health Sciences, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-8483-9302
Paul KuodiDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Lira University, Lira, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0003-2483-3499
Fiona M WalterWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7191-6476
Jennifer MoodleyWomen's Health Research Unit, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town Faculty of Health Sciences, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-9398-5202

Funding

Cancer Research UK C8640/A23385Medical Research Council MC_PC_16098
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAddressing the barriers to early breast and cervical cancer diagnosis in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) requires a sound understanding and accurate assessment of diagnostic timeliness. This review aimed to map the current evidence on the time to breast and cervical cancer diagnosis and associated factors in LMICs.

designScoping review. SOURCES: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, Scopus and CINAHL. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies describing the time to diagnosis and associated factors in the context of breast and cervical cancer in LMICs published from 1 January 2010 to 20 May 2021. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened all abstracts and full texts using predefined inclusion criteria. The review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Evidence was narratively synthesised using predefined themes.

resultsTwenty-six studies conducted across 24 LMICs were included in the review, most (24/26) of which focused on breast cancer. Studies varied considerably in their conceptualisation and assessment of diagnostic time, events, intervals and delays, with a minority of the studies reporting the use of validated methods and tools. Patient-related intervals and delays were more frequently evaluated and reported than provider-related and health system-related intervals and delays. Across studies, there were variations in the estimated lengths of the appraisal, help-seeking, patient and diagnostic intervals for both cancers and the factors associated with them.

conclusionsDespite the significant burden of breast and cervical cancer in LMICs, there is limited information on the timeliness of diagnosis of these cancers. Major limitations included variations in conceptualisation and assessment of diagnostic events and intervals. These underscore the need for the use of validated and standardised tools, to improve accuracy and translation of findings to better inform interventions for addressing diagnostic delays in LMICs.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansIncomePovertybreast tumoursdiagnostic radiologypublic healthquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID35121607
PMCPMC8819798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.