Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38625931›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2024

Cervical cancer screening outcomes for HIV-positive women in the Lubombo and Manzini regions of Eswatini-Prevalence and predictors of a positive visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) screen.

Rufaro Mapaona, Victor Williams, Normusa Musarapasi, Sharon Kibwana, Thokozani Maseko, Rhinos Chekenyere, Sidumo Gumbo, Phetsile Mdluli, Hugben Byarugaba, Dileepa Galagedera and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

19 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Rufaro MapaonaCenter for Global Health Practice and Impact, Georgetown University, Mbabane, Eswatini.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3426-1240
Victor WilliamsCenter for Global Health Practice and Impact, Georgetown University, Mbabane, Eswatini.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0594-3433
Normusa MusarapasiCenter for Global Health Practice and Impact, Georgetown University, Mbabane, Eswatini.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1130-2760
Sharon KibwanaCenter for Global Health Practice and Impact, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Thokozani MasekoCenter for Global Health Practice and Impact, Georgetown University, Mbabane, Eswatini.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9547-4222
Rhinos ChekenyereCenter for Global Health Practice and Impact, Georgetown University, Mbabane, Eswatini.
Sidumo GumboCenter for Global Health Practice and Impact, Georgetown University, Mbabane, Eswatini.
Phetsile MdluliCenter for Global Health Practice and Impact, Georgetown University, Mbabane, Eswatini.
Hugben ByarugabaCenter for Global Health Practice and Impact, Georgetown University, Mbabane, Eswatini.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1490-6869
Dileepa GalagederaCenter for Global Health Practice and Impact, Georgetown University, Mbabane, Eswatini.
Arnold MafukidzeCenter for Global Health Practice and Impact, Georgetown University, Mbabane, Eswatini.
Alejandra Hurtado-de-MendozaLombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Prajakta AdsulUniversity of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States of America.
Pido BongominCenter for Global Health Practice and Impact, Georgetown University, Mbabane, Eswatini.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3819-4088
Christopher LoffredoLombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Xolisile DlaminiNational Cancer Control Program, Ministry of Health, Mbabane, Eswatini.
Deus BaziraCenter for Global Health Practice and Impact, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6459-5555
Sylvia OjooCenter for Global Health Practice and Impact, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Samson HaumbaCenter for Global Health Practice and Impact, Georgetown University, Mbabane, Eswatini.
Georgetown University · USMinistry of Health · SZUniversity of New Mexico · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to describe the prevalence and predictors of a positive VIA (visual inspection with acetic acid) cervical cancer screening test in women living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). We retrospectively analysed data from women aged ≥15 who accessed VIA screening from health facilities in the Lubombo and Manzini regions of Eswatini. Sociodemographic and clinical data from October 2020 to June 2023 were extracted from the client management information system (CMIS). VIA screening outcome was categorised into negative, positive, or suspicious. A logistic regression model estimated the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of the predictors of a positive VIA screen at p<0.05 with 95% confidence intervals. Of 23,657 participants, 60.8% (n = 14,397) were from the Manzini region. The mean age was 33.3 years (standard deviation 7.0), and 33% (n = 7,714) were first-time screens. The prevalence of a positive VIA was 2.6% (95% CI: 2.2%, 3.0%): 2.8% (95% CI: 2.2%, 3.5%) in Lubombo and 2.4% (95% CI: 2.0%, 2.9%) in Manzini (p = 0.096). Screening at mission-owned (AOR 1.40; p = 0.001), NGO-owned (AOR 3.08; p<0.001) and industrial/workplace-owned health facilities (AOR 2.37; p = 0.044) were associated with increased odds of a positive VIA compared to government-owned health facilities. Compared to those aged 25-34, the odds of a positive VIA increased by 1.26 for those in the 35-44 age group (AOR 1.26; p = 0.017). Predictors with lower odds for a positive VIA test were: being on anti-retroviral therapy (ART) for 5-9 years (AOR 0.76; p = 0.004) and ≥10 years (AOR 0.66; p = 0.002) compared to <5 years; and having an undetectable viral load (AOR 0.39; p<0.001) compared to unsuppressed. Longer duration on ART and an undetectable viral load reduced the odds, while middle-aged women and screening at non-public health facilities increased the odds of a positive VIA screen.

Identifiers

PMID38625931
PMCPMC11020862
OpenAlexW4394856447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.