Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36852310›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2023

Identification of over- and undertreatment in the Dutch national cervical cancer screening program: A data linkage study at the hospital level.

Maarten D Vink, Geeske Hofstra, Xander Koolman, Ruud L Bekkers, Albert G Siebers, Folkert J van Kemenade, Koen B Böcker, Michiel Ten Hove, Eric J van der Hijden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Maarten D VinkDepartment of Health Economics, School of Business and Economics & Talma Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Geeske HofstraDepartment of Health Economics, School of Business and Economics & Talma Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Xander KoolmanDepartment of Health Economics, School of Business and Economics & Talma Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ruud L BekkersDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catherina Cancer Institute, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Albert G SiebersPALGA, Houten, 3991SZ, the Netherlands.
Folkert J van KemenadeDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 3000 CA, the Netherlands.
Koen B BöckerNational Health Care Institute, Diemen, 1112 ZA, the Netherlands.
Michiel Ten HoveVektis, Zeist, 3708 JE, the Netherlands.
Eric J van der HijdenDepartment of Health Economics, School of Business and Economics & Talma Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research into the quality of cancer screening programs often lacks the perspective of clinicians, missing insights into the performance of individual hospitals. This retrospective cohort study aimed to identify guideline deviation (specifically, overtreatment and undertreatment) related to the cervical cancer screening program in Dutch hospitals by deterministically linking nationwide insurance data with pathology data for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). We then constructed quality indicators using the Dutch CIN guideline and National Health Care Institute recommendations to assess compliance with CIN management, treatment outcomes, and follow-up, using an empirical Bayes shrinkage model to correct for case-mix variation and hospitals with few observations. Data were linked for 115,899 of 125,751 (92%) eligible women. Overtreatment was observed in the see-and-treat approach (immediate treatment) for women with low-grade referral cytology (4%; hospital range, 0%-25%), CIN ≤ 1 treatment specimens (26%; hospital range, 10%-55%), and follow-up cervix cytology ≥2 months before the guideline recommendation after treatment for CIN 2 (2%; hospital range, 0%-9%) or CIN 3 (5%; hospital range, 0%-19%). By contrast, undertreatment was observed for treatment within 3 months after a CIN 3 biopsy result (90%; hospital range 59%-100%) and follow-up ≥2 months beyond the guideline recommendation after treatments for CIN 2 (21%, hospital range 7%-48%) and CIN 3 (20%, hospital range 7%-90%). In conclusion, we found evidence of CIN overtreatment and undertreatment in all measured domains at the hospital level. Guideline adherence could be improved by implementing the developed indicators in an audit and feedback instrument for use by healthcare professionals in routine practice.

Indexed as

Cervical cancer screeningCervical intraepithelial neoplasiaCIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasiaGuideline adherenceHealth policyhrHPV, high-risk human papillomavirusLEEP, loop electrosurgical excision procedureNational screening programPhysician practice patternsQuality indicators

Identifiers

PMID36852310
PMCPMC9958351

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.