Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37438686›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2023

Failure to follow up abnormal test results associated with cervical cancer in primary and ambulatory care: a systematic review.

Javiera Martinez-Gutierrez, Sophie Chima, Lucy Boyd, Asma Sherwani, Allison Drosdowsky, Napin Karnchanachari, Vivien Luong, Jeanette C Reece, Jon Emery

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 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. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Javiera Martinez-GutierrezCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. javiera.martinez@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2493-9974
Sophie ChimaCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1746-5851
Lucy BoydCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8287-6978
Asma SherwaniCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9043-5056
Allison DrosdowskyCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5346-3277
Napin KarnchanachariCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2816-8983
Vivien LuongCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5342-4507
Jeanette C ReeceNeuroepidemiology Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2897-0271
Jon EmeryCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5274-6336

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is a preventable and treatable form of cancer yet continues to be the fourth most common cancer among women globally. Primary care is the first point of contact most patients have with health services and is where most cancer prevention and early detection occur. Inadequate follow-up of abnormal test results for cervical abnormalities in primary care can lead to suboptimal patient outcomes including higher mortality and decreased quality of life.

aimsTo explore the magnitude of and factors associated with, inadequate follow-up of test results for cervical abnormalities in primary and ambulatory care.

methodsMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL were searched for peer-reviewed literature from 2000-2022, excluding case-studies, grey literature, and systematic reviews. Studies were included if they reported on patients aged ≥ 18 years with no previous cancer diagnosis, in a primary care/ambulatory setting. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical appraisal checklists, appropriate to the study design. A segregated methodology was used to perform a narrative synthesis, maintaining the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research.

resultsWe included 27 publications reporting on 26 studies in our review; all were conducted in high-income countries. They included 265,041 participants from a variety of ambulatory settings such as family medicine, primary care, women's services, and colposcopy clinics. Rates of inadequate follow-up ranged from 4 to 75%. Studies reported 41 different factors associated with inadequate follow-up. Personal factors associated with inadequate follow-up included younger age, lower education, and socioeconomic status. Psychological factors were reported by only 3/26 studies and 2/3 found no significant association. System protective factors included the presence of a regular primary care provider and direct notification of abnormal test results. DISCUSSION: This review describes inadequate follow-up of abnormal cervical abnormalities in primary care. Prevalence varied and the evidence about causal factors is unclear. Most interventions evaluated were effective in decreasing inadequate follow-up. Examples of effective interventions were appointment reminders via telephone, direct notification of laboratory results, and HPV self-sampling. Even though rates of cervical cancer have decreased over the years, there is a lack of information on factors affecting follow-up in primary care and ambulatory settings, particularly in low and middle-income countries. This information is crucial if we are to achieve WHO's interim targets by 2030, and hope to avert 62 million cervical cancer deaths by 2120.

trial registrationPROSPERO ID CRD42021250136.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsAmbulatory CareAmbulatory Care FacilitiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansQuality of LifeAbnormal test resultsCervical cancerHuman papilloma virusInadequate follow-upPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID37438686
PMCPMC10337158

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.