Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35762572›Full record

Observational studyeLife2022

US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study.

Diane M Harper, Melissa Plegue, Masahito Jimbo, Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin, Ananda Sen

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in eLife, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cancer InFocus: Tools for Cancer Center Catchment Area Geographic Data Collection and Visualization.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    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.

Diane M HarperDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7648-883X
Melissa PlegueDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States.
Masahito JimboDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States.
Sherri Sheinfeld GorinDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States.
Ananda SenDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States.

Funding

XenograftP30CA046592 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Eric R. Fearon · 1988 to 2026
$178.2M
Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR)UL1TR002240 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LUMENG, JULIE C, MASHOUR, GEORGE ALEXANDER · 2017 to 2022
$54.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002240NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046592
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Using screen counts, women 50-64 years old have lower cancer screening rates for cervical and colorectal cancers (CRC) than all other age ranges. This paper aims to present woman-centric cervical cancer and CRC screenings to determine the predictor of being up-to-date for both. Methods: We used the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), an annual survey to guide health policy in the United States, to explore the up-to-date status of dual cervical cancer and CRC screening for women 50-64 years old. We categorized women into four mutually exclusive categories: up-to-date for dual-screening, each single screen, or neither screen. We used multinomial multivariate regression modeling to evaluate the predictors of each category. Results: Among women ages 50-64 years old, dual-screening was reported for 58.2% (57.1-59.4), cervical cancer screening alone (27.1% (26.0-28.2)), CRC screening alone (5.4% (4.9-5.9)), and neither screen (9.3% (8.7-9.9)). Age, race, education, income, and chronic health conditions were significantly associated with dual-screening compared to neither screen. Hispanic women compared to non-Hispanic White women were more likely to be up-to-date with cervical cancer screening than dual-screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = Conclusions: Screening received by each woman shows a much lower rate of dual-screening than prior single cancer screening rates. Addressing dual-screening strategies rather than single cancer screening programs for women 50-64 years may increase both cancer screening rates. Funding: This work was supported by NIH through the Michigan Institute for Clinical and61 Health Research UL1TR002240 and by NCI through The University of Michigan Rogel Cancer62 Center P30CA046592 grants.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedUnited Statescervical cancercolorectal cancerhumanmedicineprimary careself-sampling

Identifiers

PMID35762572
PMCPMC9239676

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.