Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35523456›Full record

SynthesisFamily medicine and community health2022

Side effects and acceptability measures for thermal ablation as a treatment for cervical precancer in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.

Evelyne Marie Piret, Beth A Payne, Laurie W Smith, Jessica Trawin, Jackson Orem, Gina Ogilvie, Carolyn Nakisige

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Family medicine and community health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Evelyne Marie PiretBritish Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Centre, Women's Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9569-4989
Beth A PayneBritish Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Centre, Women's Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Laurie W SmithBritish Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Centre, Women's Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jessica TrawinBritish Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Centre, Women's Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jackson OremDepartment of Reproductive Oncology, Uganda Cancer Institute, Kampala, Uganda.
Gina OgilvieBritish Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Centre, Women's Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Carolyn NakisigeDepartment of Reproductive Oncology, Uganda Cancer Institute, Kampala, Uganda carolynnakisige@gmail.com.
University of British Columbia · CAUganda Cancer Institute · UGWomen's Health Research Institute · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveUnderstanding the side effects and acceptability of thermal ablation (TA) is necessary before large-scale application in screen-and-treat programmes can be justified in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).

designArticles were selected for inclusion by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black's criteria. Summary data were extracted, and authors contacted for data when necessary. Proportions of interest and 95% CIs were estimated using a random effects model. Subgroup analysis was performed based on place of treatment and timing of post-treatment follow-up. Heterogeneity was estimated using the I ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies that reported one or more side effects or patient acceptability measures after treatment of the cervix using TA in women living in LMICs who completed a cervical cancer screening test. Included articles were clinical trials or observational studies available in English and published before 18 December 2020. INFORMATION SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CAB Global Health and WHO Global Index Medicus were searched for this systematic review and meta-synthesis.

resultsA total of 1590 abstracts were screened, 84 full text papers reviewed and 15 papers selected for inclusion in the qualitative review, 10 for meta-synthesis (N=2039). Significant heterogeneity was found in screening tests used to identify women eligible for TA and in methods to ascertain side effects. The most commonly reported side effect during treatment was pain (70%, 95% CI 52% to 85%; I

conclusionsTA results in a number of common side effects, though acceptability remains high among women treated in LMICs. Standardised side effect and acceptability reporting are needed as TA becomes more readily available. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020197605.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsDeveloping CountriesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansPainPovertyGlobal HealthPatient Acceptance of Health CareWomen's Health

Identifiers

PMID35523456
PMCPMC9083391
OpenAlexW4229023779

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.