ArticlePloS one2024
High-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening in Uganda: Considering potential harms and benefits in a low-resource setting.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of the health belief model and HPV self-testing in cervical cancer screening participation in the Czech Republic.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- The effect of hrHPV prevalence on cervical cancer screening strategies: a cost-effectiveness study of Bangladesh.BMC public health · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe World Health Organization supports both the screen-and-treat (ST) approach and the screen, triage and treat (STT) approach to cervical cancer screening using high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing. For Uganda, the sequence of hrHPV-ST and hrHPV-STT could be similar, with visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) after positive hrHPV tests in both. To consider potential tradeoffs (overtreatment in ST versus missed cancer cases in STT), we compared hrHPV-STT with VIA triage (STT-VIA), and STT with HPV 16/18 genotyping risk stratification, to hrHPV-ST for Uganda, in terms of overtreatment, cervical cancer incidence, and life years, for the general female population of Uganda.
methodsA microsimulation model of cervical cancer was adapted. Incremental benefit-harm ratios of STT were calculated as ratios of prevented overtreatment to reduced life years, and to increased cancer cases. Additional scenarios with 20% difference in intra- and inter-screening follow-up between ST and STT were modeled.
resultsBoth STT strategies resulted in life year losses on average compared to ST. STT-VIA prevented more overtreatment but led to increased cervical cancer incidence and life year losses. STT-G-VIA resulted in better harm-benefit ratios and additional costs. With better follow-up, STT prevented overtreatment and improved outcomes. DISCUSSION: For Uganda, the STT approach appears preferrable, if the screening sequences of hrHPV-based ST and STT are similar in practice. While VIA triage alone would reduce overtreatment the most, it could also result in more cancer cases. Risk stratification via genotyping could improve STT. Potential follow-up differences and resource availability should be considered by decision-makers when planning Uganda's hrHPV-based screening strategy.
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.