Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36959632›Full record

SynthesisBMC women's health2023

Interventions to increase the uptake of cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Khaing Nwe Tin, Chetta Ngamjarus, Siwanon Rattanakanokchai, Jen Sothornwit, Apiwat Aue-Aungkul, Aye Kyawt Paing, Porjai Pattanittum, Nampet Jampathong, Pisake Lumbiganon

Full text readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Khaing Nwe TinMaternal and Reproductive Health Division, Department of Public Health, Ministry of Health, Naypyidaw, Myanmar.ORCID 0000-0002-4223-5102
Chetta NgamjarusDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Public Health, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand. nchett@kku.ac.th.ORCID 0000-0002-5737-5941
Siwanon RattanakanokchaiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Public Health, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Jen SothornwitDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-5985-7389
Apiwat Aue-AungkulDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Aye Kyawt PaingIndependent Researcher, Yangon, Myanmar.
Porjai PattanittumDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Public Health, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-5787-1099
Nampet JampathongCochrane Thailand, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Pisake LumbiganonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-9372-0071

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo identify effective interventions to increase the uptake of cervical cancer screening (CCS) for low-and middle-income countries (LMICs).

methodsWe searched PubMed, CENTRAL, ISI Web of Sciences, Scopus, OVID (Medline), CINAHL, LILACS, CNKI and OpenGrey for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs conducted in LMICs from January 2000 to September 2021. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were conducted for data synthesis.

resultsWe included 38 reports of 24 studies involving 318,423 participants from 15 RCTs and nine cluster RCTs. Single interventions may increase uptake of CCS when compared with control (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.82). Self-sampling of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing may increase uptake of CCS relative to routine Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.25). Reminding with phone call may increase uptake of CCS than letter (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.32) and SMS (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.13). Sending 15 health messages may increase uptake of CCS relative to one SMS (RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.46 to 5.19). Free subsidized cost may increase uptake of CCS slightly than $0.66 subsidized cost (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.33). Community based HPV test may increase uptake of CCS slightly in compared to hospital collected HPV (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.82). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combined interventions on CCS uptake relative to single intervention (RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.14).

conclusionsSingle interventions including reminding with phone call, SMS, community self-sampling of HPV test, and free subsidized services may enhance CCS uptake. Combined interventions, including health education interventions and SMS plus e-voucher, may be better than single intervention. Due to low-certainty evidences, these findings should be applied cautiously.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsDeveloping CountriesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth EducationHumansCervical cancer screeningLow- and middle-income countriesSystematic reviewUptake

Identifiers

PMID36959632
PMCPMC10035175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read6
measurements read69
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.