ArticleResearch square2024
Evaluation of Follow-up Colposcopy Procedures After Abnormal Cervical Screening Result Across a Statewide Study in Mississippi.
Article in Research square, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Cervical screening is used to detect and treat precancers to prevent invasive cancers. However, successful prevention also requires adequate follow-up and treatment of individuals with abnormal screening results. The aim was to investigate demographics, clinical characteristics, and follow-up status for individuals needing colposcopy after an abnormal screening result. Methods: The STRIDES ( Results: Of the 1,458 individuals requiring colposcopy, 43.0% had the procedure within 4 months, 16.4% had a delayed procedure, and 39.5% had no documented follow-up, with significant predictors of follow-up identified as age and cytology diagnosis. Based on age, individuals 30 + were more likely to follow up with a colposcopy compared to individuals < 30 years (49% and 38.7%, respectively; p < .001). Individuals with cytology diagnoses of LSIL (52.9%), ASC-H (51.4%), and HSIL (62.3%) had higher percentages of adherence to follow-up colposcopy guidelines (p < .001). Conclusion: Despite high cervical cancer screening rates among Mississippians, a substantial portion did not have adequate next-step intervention. However, it is encouraging that highest risk individuals were more likely to have a colposcopy. Regardless, continuing to understand the underlying causes for incomplete follow-up is crucial for timely secondary targeted interventions to reduce cervical cancer burden, promote awareness, and improve health outcomes.
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.