Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37519623›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

Screening Guidelines and Programs for Cervical Cancer Control in Countries of Different Economic Groups: A Narrative Review.

Jyoti Sharma, Madhavi Yennapu, Yamini Priyanka

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Yield of endocervical curettage in detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher during colposcopy: A prospective, cross-sectional study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jyoti SharmaCouncil of Scientific and Industrial Research-National Institute of Science Communication and Policy Research (CSIR-NIScPR), Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), New Delhi, IND.
Madhavi YennapuCouncil of Scientific and Industrial Research-National Institute of Science Communication and Policy Research (CSIR-NIScPR), Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), New Delhi, IND.
Yamini PriyankaDivision of Reproductive Child Health and Nutrition, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, IND.
Indian Council of Medical Research · INAcademy of Scientific and Innovative Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening guidelines and practices differ according to resource availability and continually update as scientific developments take place. In this article, we have reviewed screening guidelines and programs for cervical cancer prevention in selected countries belonging to different economic groups viz high income, middle income, and low income. We have selected six countries - the United States of America (USA), the United Kingdom (UK), India, South Africa, Bangladesh, and Malawi. Considerable differences are observed across the health systems. Countries with established screening guidelines complemented by organised nationwide programs or insurance practices have much better screening rates. Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) DNA testing is currently the test of choice in the majority of settings for cervical cancer screening due to its higher sensitivity (up to 90-100%) and longer screening intervals (three to five years). It is also cost-effective, less dependent on operator expertise, and suitable for all settings as compared to a Pap smear test or visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA). Self-sampling of HPV can further help to improve screening coverage by increasing opportunities of reaching to women who would otherwise not participate in screening programs. Resource-constrained countries recommend VIA-based screening in their national programs due to its low cost. The share of cervical cancer is higher in middle and low-income countries as they have lower screening coverage, compared to high-income countries. The main barriers faced in the implementation of the program in low-income countries (LICs) are pertaining to the health system, patient-specific challenges, and healthcare provider-specific challenges.

Indexed as

barrierscervical cancerguidelineshealth system challengesimplementationprogramscreening

Identifiers

PMID37519623
PMCPMC10381098
OpenAlexW4382361727

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.