Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35283720›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of public health2022

Study Protocol: Randomised Controlled Trial Assessing the Efficacy of Strategies Involving Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening.

Caroline Lefeuvre, Hélène De Pauw, Anne-Sophie Le Duc Banaszuk, Adeline Pivert, Alexandra Ducancelle, Franck Rexand-Galais, Marc Arbyn

Erratum issuedAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Mailing Vaginal or Urine Self-Sampling Kits versus Conventional Invitation Letters: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Cervical Cancer Screening Attendance.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Caroline LefeuvreUniversité d'Angers, HIFIH, UPRES EA 3859, Angers, France.
Hélène De PauwUnit of Cancer Epidemiology, Belgian Cancer Centre, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Anne-Sophie Le Duc BanaszukCentre Régional de Coordination de Dépistages des Cancers Pays de la Loire (CRCDC Pays de La Loire), Angers, France.
Adeline PivertUniversité d'Angers, HIFIH, UPRES EA 3859, Angers, France.
Alexandra DucancelleUniversité d'Angers, HIFIH, UPRES EA 3859, Angers, France.
Franck Rexand-GalaisLaboratoire CLiPsy (BePsyLab), Faculté des Lettres, Langues et Sciences Humaines, Département Psychologie, Maison de la Recherche Germaine Tillon, Université d'Angers, Angers, France.
Marc ArbynUnit of Cancer Epidemiology, Belgian Cancer Centre, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSelf CareSpecimen HandlingVaginal Smearscancer screening testcervical cancerrandomised controlled trialscreening coveragesemi-structured interviewsunder-screened womenurinary self-samplingvaginal self-sampling

Identifiers

PMID35283720
PMCPMC8907121

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.