ArticleEcancermedicalscience2024
Acceptability and feasibility of implementing thermal ablation as a preventive cervical cancer treatment and the comparison of treatment outcome with cryotherapy in Zimbabwe.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and background: Thermal ablation, a technique that destroys precancerous cervical cells by extreme heat or cold, is predominantly used as a preventive cervical cancer treatment modality in high-income countries. Compared to other treatment methods thermal ablation has numerous advantages in its portability, minimal electricity use and comparable treatment rates, which is convenient for use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Therefore, it is important to understand acceptability among providers and clients and the feasibility of achieving comparable treatment outcomes with other methods in LMICs. Methodology: We conducted a prospective longitudinal, open-label two-arm study from June 2021 to April 2022 at seven health delivery points. In this study, 182 clients were enrolled to receive preventive cancer treatment at baseline and followed up 6 months later to measure treatment outcomes and experiences on the procedure. Eligible consented clients were elected to a preferred method (either thermal ablation as an intervention or cryotherapy as a control group). We also conducted qualitative interviews with 14 service providers in either static or outreach settings. Results: At the 6-month follow-up, the efficacy was comparable among the two groups, 96.5% (95% CI 86.7%-99.1%) clients in the intervention group had successful lesion treatment rate compared to 80.8% (95% CI 69.9%-99.1%) of the control group. Furthermore, 99% of clients in the intervention group would recommend thermal ablation to their family members or peers. Service providers preferred thermal ablation due to its ease of use, lower costs, portability and lower likelihood of adverse events compared to cryotherapy. Conclusion: The study showed the feasibility of implementing thermal ablation as a new preventive cervical cancer treatment modality in Zimbabwe. Furthermore, service providers indicated their preference for thermal ablation due to its ease of use, portability at static settings and lower likelihood of adverse events occurrence. Therefore, we recommend scaling up thermal ablation both at static and outreach sites.
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.