Concordance of Primary Human Papillomavirus Testing Among Clinicians and Patients: A Systematic Review.

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.

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.

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Are we ready? assessing effectiveness and implementation of cancer control strategies in primary care: a comprehensive review of systematic reviews.Family practice · 2025
   Review
2. Culturally Competent Education and Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling Achieves Healthy People 2030 Cervical Screening Target Among Low-Income Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic Women.JCO global oncology · 2024
   Article
3. Evaluation of an Isothermal Amplification HPV Assay on Self-Collected Vaginal Samples as Compared to Clinician-Collected Cervical Samples.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as