Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36358612›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

Effectiveness of Cervical Testing in and outside a Screening Program-A Case-Control Study.

Maiju Pankakoski, Tytti Sarkeala, Ahti Anttila, Sirpa Heinävaara

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maiju PankakoskiFinnish Cancer Registry, Unioninkatu 22, 00130 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-2074-9559
Tytti SarkealaFinnish Cancer Registry, Unioninkatu 22, 00130 Helsinki, Finland.
Ahti AnttilaFinnish Cancer Registry, Unioninkatu 22, 00130 Helsinki, Finland.
Sirpa HeinävaaraFinnish Cancer Registry, Unioninkatu 22, 00130 Helsinki, Finland.
Finnish Cancer Registry · FIUniversity of Helsinki · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In many countries with organized cervical cancer screening, opportunistic Pap and human papillomavirus (HPV) tests are common. However, little is known about their effectiveness. We examined the effect of testing in and outside the Finnish screening program on the risk of cervical cancer. We conducted a case-control study that involved 1677 cases with invasive cervical cancer that were diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. Five- and three-year test intervals were analyzed across all ages, by age group and by cancer morphology subtype. Conditional logistic regression was used, adjusting for socioeconomic variables. Women undergoing any kind of cervical test had a significantly lowered risk of cervical cancer (adjusted OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.38-0.48, tests in five-year intervals). The results were similar, regardless of whether the test had been taken in the screening program or outside of it, or whether the interval was five years or three years. Testing of women at ages 35-64 showed the strongest effects, but moderate preventive effects were seen until age 79. No significant effect was seen below age 30. Tests in and outside the program were effective at the screening target age. However, participation in the program should be encouraged for optimal cost-effectiveness. Preventive effects were also seen above the program target ages.

Indexed as

case-control studycervical cancereffectiveness studyscreening

Identifiers

PMID36358612
PMCPMC9653595
OpenAlexW4307327722

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.