Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38874926›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Cervical Cancer Screening Rates Among Rural and Urban Females, From 2019 to 2022.

Tyrone F Borders, Amanda Thaxton Wiggins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Response to Bates.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Rural-Urban Differences in Cervical Cancer Screening Patterns: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The Impact of COVID-19 on Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Tyrone F BordersCenter for Health Services Research, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Amanda Thaxton WigginsCollege of Nursing, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Little nationally representative research has examined Papanicolaou testing rates from before the pandemic in 2019 through the COVID-19 pandemic in 2022. Papanicolaou testing rates among rural females are a concern as they have historically had lower screening rates than their urban counterparts. Objective: To examine the receipt of a Papanicolaou test in the past year among US females overall and females residing in rural and urban areas in 2019, 2020, and 2022. Design, Setting, and Participants: This repeated cross-sectional study used data from 3 years of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), a nationally representative survey that asks respondents about cancer screenings, sources of health information, and health and health care technologies. Study participants were females aged 21 to 65 years. Individuals who received a Papanicolaou test more than 1 to 3 years prior to a HINTS interview were excluded as they were likely not due for a Papanicolaou test. Exposures: Survey year (2019, 2020, and 2022) and rural or urban residence were the main exposure variables. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported receipt of a Papanicolaou test within the past year. Results: Among the 188 243 531 (weighted; 3706 unweighted) females included in the analysis, 12.5% lived in rural areas and 87.5% in urban areas. Participants had a mean (SE) age of 43.7 (0.27) years and were of Hispanic (18.8%), non-Hispanic Asian (5.2%), non-Hispanic Black (12.2%), non-Hispanic White (59.6%), or non-Hispanic other (4.1%) race and ethnicity. In 2022, unadjusted past-year Papanicolaou testing rates were significantly lower among rural vs urban residents (48.6% [95% CI, 39.2%-58.1%] vs 64.0% [95% CI, 60.0%-68.0%]; P < .001). Adjusted odds of past-year Papanicolaou testing were lower in 2022 than 2019 (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.95; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: This repeated cross-sectional study found that past-year Papanicolaou testing rates were lower in 2022 than 2019, pointing to a need to increase access to screenings to prevent an uptick in cervical cancer incidence. Rural-vs-urban differences in 2022 indicate a need to specifically target rural females.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerPapanicolaou TestRural PopulationUrban PopulationUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSARS-CoV-2United StatesVaginal SmearsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38874926
PMCPMC11179126

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.