Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39152278›Full record

ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2024

Evaluation of follow-up colposcopy procedures after abnormal cervical screening result across a statewide study in Mississippi.

Sydney Reaves, Katherine C Hall, Mary W Stewart, Nicolas Wentzensen, Christina Ferrell, Carolann Risley, Jimmie Wells, Rhonda Rives, Fajada Bobo, Jon Daniels and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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 Health
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Sydney ReavesSchool of Nursing, University of Mississippi Medical Center, 2500 N State St, Jackson, MS, 39216, USA. sreaves@umc.edu.
Katherine C HallSchool of Nursing, University of Mississippi Medical Center, 2500 N State St, Jackson, MS, 39216, USA.
Mary W StewartSchool of Nursing, Mississippi State University, Meridian, MS, USA.
Nicolas WentzensenDivision of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, Clinical Genetics Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Christina FerrellSchool of Nursing, University of Mississippi Medical Center, 2500 N State St, Jackson, MS, 39216, USA.
Carolann RisleySchool of Nursing, University of Mississippi Medical Center, 2500 N State St, Jackson, MS, 39216, USA.
Jimmie WellsSchool of Nursing, University of Mississippi Medical Center, 2500 N State St, Jackson, MS, 39216, USA.
Rhonda RivesDepartment of Pathology, Mississippi Baptist Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA.
Fajada BoboDepartment of Pathology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA.
Jon DanielsMississippi State Department of Health, Jackson, MS, USA.
Kathy FarringtonMississippi State Department of Health, Jackson, MS, USA.
Jody C MorganSchool of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA.
Megan A ClarkeDivision of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, Clinical Genetics Branch, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.

Funding

Tracking and Evaluation CoreU54GM115428 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MED CTR · PI GOMEZ-SANCHEZ, CELSO ENRIQUE · 2016 to 2025
$38.2M
Dr. Carolann Risley is supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health Award Number U54GM115428NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM115428
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCervical 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.

methodsThe STRIDES (Studying Risk to Improve DisparitiES) cohort comprises individuals undergoing cervical cancer screening and management at a Mississippi Health Department or University of Mississippi clinic. Follow-up status, demographics, and clinical data were assessed from electronic health records and, if necessary, patient navigation on individuals identified as needing a colposcopy after an abnormal screening.

resultsOf 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 colposcopy follow-up, with significant predictors of follow-up identified as age and cytology diagnosis. Individuals 30 + were more likely to have 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 guidelines (p < .001). In total, we found that 78% of individuals had some type of follow-up, including a repeat screening visit.

conclusionDespite high cervical cancer screening rates among Mississippians, a substantial proportion 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.

Indexed as

ColposcopyEarly Detection of CancerUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedMississippiUterine Cervical DysplasiaVaginal SmearsASC-HASC-USCervical cancerColposcopyHSILLSIL

Identifiers

PMID39152278
PMCPMC11561063

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.