ArticleO&G open2024
Lives Saved Through Increasing Adherence to Follow-Up After Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results.
Article in O&G open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality indicators for cervical screening in Sweden.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- Experiences and Preferences Reported with an At-Home Self-Collection Device Compared with In-Clinic Speculum-Based Cervical Cancer Screening in the United States.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Strategies to Optimize Cervical Cancer Screening Rates Among Transgender and Gender-Diverse People Assigned Female at Birth.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo model the potential number of cancers prevented and life-years saved over a range of adherence rates to cervical cancer screening, surveillance follow-up, and follow-up colposcopy that may result from removing financial barriers to these essential clinical services.
methodsA previously validated decision-analytic Markov microsimulation model was used to evaluate the increase in adherence to screening, surveillance, and colposcopy after an abnormal cervical cancer screening result. For each incremental increase in adherence, we modeled the number of cervical cancer cases avoided, the stages at which the cancers were detected, the number of cervical cancer deaths avoided, and the number of life-years gained.
resultsCompared with current adherence rates, the model estimated that an optimized scenario of perfect screening, surveillance, and colposcopy adherence per 100,000 women currently eligible for screening in the United States was 128 (95% CI, 66-199) fewer cervical cancers detected (23%), 62 (95% CI, 7-120) fewer cervical cancer deaths (20%), and 2,135 (95% CI, 1,363-3,057) more life-years saved. Sensitivity analysis revealed that any increase in adherence led to clinically meaningful health benefits.
conclusionThe consequences of not attending routine screening or follow-up after an abnormal cervical cancer screening result are associated with preventable cervical cancer morbidity and premature mortality. Given the potential for the removal of consumer cost sharing to increase the use of necessary follow-up after abnormal screening results and to ultimately reduce cervical cancer morbidity and mortality, public and private payers should remove cost barriers to these essential services.
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.