Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37786399›Full record

ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2023

Colposcopy referral rates post-introduction of primary screening with human papillomavirus testing: evidence from a large British Columbia cohort study.

Anna Gottschlich, Lovedeep Gondara, Laurie W Smith, Jennifer Joy Anderson, Darrel Cook, Mel Krajden, Marette Lee, Ruth Elwood Martin, Joy Melnikow, Stuart Peacock and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Loop electrosurgical excision procedure and perinatal outcomes post-human papillomavirus cervical screening: A longitudinal cohort study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  2. Characterizing Cervical Cancer Screening in the US: Preparing for the Era of Self-Collection.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Strategies to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer in British Columbia, Canada: a modelling study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Anna GottschlichWomen's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Service, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Lovedeep GondaraCervical Cancer Screening Program, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Laurie W SmithWomen's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Service, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Jennifer Joy AndersonWomen's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Service, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Darrel CookBritish Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Mel KrajdenFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Marette LeeCervical Cancer Screening Program, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Ruth Elwood MartinFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Joy MelnikowCenter for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Stuart PeacockCancer Control Research, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Lily ProctorWomen's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Service, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Gavin StuartFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Eduardo L FrancoDivision of Cancer Epidemiology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Dirk van NiekerkCervical Cancer Screening Program, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Gina S OgilvieWomen's Health Research Institute, BC Women's Hospital and Health Service, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
BC Cancer Agency · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CABC Centre for Disease Control · CACenter For Policy Research · USMcGill University · CAWayne State University · US

Funding

Addressing emerging health system priorities in cervical cancer prevention: determining optimal strategies for human papillomavirus test-based screening and triageR01CA221918 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA · PI OGILVIE, GINA · 2018 to 2022
$1.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA221918
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Shifting from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening will initially increase colposcopy referrals. The anticipated impact on health systems has been raised as a concern for implementation. It is unclear if the higher rate of colposcopy referrals is sustained after initial HPV-based screens or reverts to new lower baselines due to earlier detection and treatment of precancer. This study aimed to investigate long-term rates of colposcopy referrals after participation in HPV-based screening. Methods: Participants of HPV for Cervical Cancer Screening trial (HPV FOCAL) received one (HPV1, N = 6204) or two (HPV2, N = 9540) HPV-based screens. After exit, they returned to British Columbia's (BC) cytology screening program. A comparison cohort from the BC screening population (BCS, N = 1,140,745) was identified, mirroring trial inclusion criteria. All participants were followed for 10-14 years through the provincial screening registry. Colposcopy referral rates per 1000 screens were calculated for each group. Trial colposcopy referrals for HPV1 and HPV2 were calculated under two referral scenarios: (1) all HPV positive referred to colposcopy; (2) cytology triage with ASCUS or greater referred to colposcopy. Colposcopy referrals from post-trial screens in HPV1 an HPV2 and all screens in BCS were based on actual recommendations from the screening program. A multivariable flexible survival regression model compared hazard ratios (HR) throughout follow-up. Findings: Scenario 2 referral rates were higher during initial HPV screen(s) vs cytology screen (HPV1: 28 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 24, 33), HPV2: 32 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 29, 36), BCS: 8 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 8.9)). However, post-trial rates in HPV1 and HPV2 were significantly lower than in BCS. Cumulative rates in HPV1 and HPV2 approached the cumulative rate in BCS 11-12 years after HPV-based screening (HPV1: 11 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 10, 12), HPV2: 16 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 15-17), BCS: 11 per 1000 screens (95% CI: 10, 11)). Adjusted models demonstrated reductions in referral rates in HPV1 (HR = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.5, 0.7) and HPV2 (HR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6, 0.8) relative to BCS by 54 and 72 months post-final HPV screen respectively. Interpretation: Reduced colposcopy referral rates were observed after initial rounds of HPV-based screening. After initial HPV screening, referral rates to colposcopy after cytology triage were below the current rates seen in a centralized cytology program after approximately four years. Any expected increase in referrals at initiation of HPV-based screening could be countered by staged program implementation. Funding: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA221918), Michael Smith Health Research BC (RT-2021-1595), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MCT82072).

Indexed as

Cervical cancerColposcopyHuman papillomavirusScreening

Identifiers

PMID37786399
PMCPMC10542010
OpenAlexW4387203851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.