ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2024
Assessing Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results and Concordance with Guideline Recommendations in Three US Healthcare Settings.
Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Why Women Don't Return: Nurse Perspectives on Follow-Up Care After Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results in Mississippi's Public Health System.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Characterizing Cervical Cancer Screening in the US: Preparing for the Era of Self-Collection.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2026Article
- Process Mapping to Compare and Improve Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results in Two US Healthcare Systems within the PROSPR Consortium.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of an intelligent digital platform for population management in cervical cancer screening.Cancer biology & medicine · 2025Observational
- Individual and Geographical Factors Associated With Follow-Up Care After an Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Result.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's HealthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFollow-up of abnormal results is essential to cervical cancer screening, but data on adherence to follow-up are limited. We describe patterns of follow-up after screening abnormalities and identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up.
methodsWe identified the index screening abnormality (positive human papillomavirus test or atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more severe cytology) among women of ages 25 to 65 years at three US healthcare systems during 2010 to 2019. We estimated the cumulative incidence of surveillance testing, colposcopy, or treatment after the index abnormality and initial colposcopy. Logistic regressions were fit to identify predictors of guideline-concordant follow-up according to contemporaneous guidelines.
resultsAmong 43,007 patients with an index abnormality, the cumulative incidence of any follow-up was 49.6% by 4 years for those with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/human papillomavirus-negative and higher for abnormalities warranting immediate colposcopy. The 1-year cumulative incidence of any follow-up after colposcopy was 70% for patients with normal results or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia I and 90% for patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II+. Rates of concordant follow-up after screening and colposcopy were 52% and 47%, respectively. Discordant follow-up was associated with factors including age, race/ethnicity, overweight/obese body mass index, and specific types of public payor coverage or being uninsured.
conclusionsAdherence to the recommended follow-up of cytologic and histopathologic abnormalities is inconsistent in clinical practice. Concordance was poor for mild abnormalities and improved, although suboptimal, for more severe abnormalities. IMPACT: There remain gaps in the cervical cancer screening process in clinical practice. Further study is needed to understand the barriers to the appropriate management of cervical abnormalities.
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.