Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35470184›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Effectiveness of interventions for improving timely diagnosis of breast and cervical cancers in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Chukwudi A Nnaji, Paul Kuodi, Fiona M Walter, Jennifer Moodley

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Relationship between Health Inequalities and Breast Cancer Survival in Mexican Women.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  17. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.

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
Paul KuodiDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Lira University, Lira, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0003-2483-3499
Fiona M WalterDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 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
Western Cape Department of Health · ZALira Hospital · UGQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically synthesise available evidence on the nature and effectiveness of interventions for improving timely diagnosis of breast and cervical cancers in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).

designA systematic review of published evidence. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of published literature was conducted. In addition, relevant grey literature sources and bibliographical references of included studies were searched for potentially eligible evidence. STUDY SELECTION: Studies published between January 2010 and November 2020 were eligible for inclusion. To be eligible, studies had to report on interventions/strategies targeted at women, the general public or healthcare workers, aimed at improving the timely diagnosis of breast and/or cervical cancers in LMIC settings. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Literature search, screening, study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by two independent reviewers. Evidence was synthesised and reported using a global taxonomy framework for early cancer diagnosis.

resultsFrom the total of 10 593 records identified, 21 studies conducted across 20 LMICs were included in this review. Most of the included studies (16/21) focused primarily on interventions addressing breast cancers; two focused on cervical cancer while the rest examined multiple cancer types. Reported interventions targeted healthcare workers (12); women and adolescent girls (7) and both women and healthcare workers (3). Eight studies reported on interventions addressing access delays; seven focused on interventions addressing diagnostic delays; two reported on interventions targeted at addressing both access and diagnostic delays, and four studies assessed interventions addressing access, diagnostic and treatment delays. While most interventions were demonstrated to be feasible and effective, many of the reported outcome measures are of limited clinical relevance to diagnostic timeliness.

conclusionsThough limited, evidence suggests that interventions aimed at addressing barriers to timely diagnosis of breast and cervical cancer are feasible in resource-limited contexts. Future interventions need to address clinically relevant measures to better assess efficacy of interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020177232.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdolescentDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansIncomeMass ScreeningPovertybreast tumoursoncologyorganisation of health servicespublic health

Identifiers

PMID35470184
PMCPMC9039388
OpenAlexW4224939061

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.