Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35810270›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2022

Colposcopy non-attendance following an abnormal cervical cancer screening result: a prospective population-based cohort study.

Linda A Liang, Sylke R Zeissig, Gunther Schauberger, Sophie Merzweiler, Kathrin Radde, Sabine Fischbeck, Hans Ikenberg, Maria Blettner, Stefanie J Klug

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Linda A LiangEpidemiology, Department of Sports and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 56, 80992, Munich, Germany.
Sylke R ZeissigInstitute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biometry, Julius-Maximilians University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Gunther SchaubergerEpidemiology, Department of Sports and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 56, 80992, Munich, Germany.
Sophie MerzweilerEpidemiology, Department of Sports and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 56, 80992, Munich, Germany.
Kathrin RaddeEpidemiology, Department of Sports and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 56, 80992, Munich, Germany.
Sabine FischbeckDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Hans IkenbergCytomol MVZ, Frankfurt, Germany.
Maria BlettnerInstitute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Stefanie J KlugEpidemiology, Department of Sports and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 56, 80992, Munich, Germany. sekretariat.klug@tum.de.
Technical University of Munich · DEUniversity Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEUniversity of Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA considerable proportion of cervical cancer diagnoses in high-income countries are due to lack of timely follow-up of an abnormal screening result. We estimated colposcopy non-attendance, examined the potential factors associated and described non-attendance reasons in a population-based screening study.

methodsData from the MARZY prospective cohort study were analysed. Co-test screen-positive women (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse [ASC-US+] or high-risk human papillomavirus [hrHPV] positive) aged 30 to 65 years were referred to colposcopy within two screening rounds (3-year interval). Women were surveyed for sociodemographic, HPV-related and other data, and interviewed for non-attendance reasons. Logistic regression was used to examine potential associations with colposcopy attendance.

resultsAt baseline, 2,627 women were screened (screen-positive = 8.7%), and 2,093 again at follow-up (screen-positive = 5.1%; median 2.7 years later). All screen-positives were referred to colposcopy, however 28.9% did not attend despite active recall. Among co-test positives (ASC-US+ and hrHPV) and only hrHPV positives, 19.6% were non-attendees. Half of only ASC-US+ screenees attended colposcopy. Middle age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.55, 95% CI 1.02, 4.96) and hrHPV positive result (aOR = 3.04, 95% CI 1.49, 7.22) were associated with attendance. Non-attendance was associated with having ≥ 3 children (aOR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.10, 0.86). Major reasons for non-attendance were lack of time, barriers such as travel time, need for childcare arrangements and the advice against colposcopy given by the gynaecologist who conducted screening.

conclusionsFollow-up rates of abnormal screening results needs improvement. A systematic recall system integrating enhanced communication and addressing follow-up barriers may improve screening effectiveness.

Indexed as

Atypical Squamous Cells of the CervixPapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsChildCohort StudiesColposcopyEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPapillomaviridaePregnancyProspective StudiesVaginal SmearsAbnormal screening resultCervical cancer screeningColposcopyHPV statusHPV testingNon-attendanceScreening follow-up

Identifiers

PMID35810270
PMCPMC9270801
OpenAlexW4284959489

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.