ArticleInformatics in medicine unlocked2023
audit_cc: A Stata command for the analysis of matched case-control audits of cervical cancer screening.
Article in Informatics in medicine unlocked, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background and objectives: Cervical screening programmes are crucial for the early diagnosis and prevention of cancer of the cervix. Regular auditing is vital for ensuring that these programmes achieve their full potential and meet their objectives in practice. Unfortunately, the time and skills required for the statistical analysis of the data collected are often important limiting factors. Comparisons across countries and over time have also been particularly difficult due to a lack of standardized definitions and methodology. We aimed to overcome these problems. Methods: Using the statistical software Stata, we developed a new command called audit_cc for the analysis of matched case-control audits of cervical cancer screening. Analyses are reported for two measures of screening history: time since last test and time since last negative test. Results: The command carries out the data manipulation which is required for the analysis and allows to save the resulting data set in an external file for further investigations. It promotes consistent evaluations of screening programmes over time and across studies and facilitates the creation of automatic publication-quality reports, which are especially useful in the context of routine audits. Conclusions: audit_cc is a valid tool that not only simplifies the analysis and reporting of cervical screening audits but also allows meaningful international comparisons. Although it is specific for cervical cancer, it can be seen as an example of how the standardisation of exposure definitions and key methodological issues can enable consistent and comparable evaluations of screening programmes across different countries and settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.