ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2025
Utilization and outcomes of serial cervical cancer screening in a National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) in a non-Medicaid expansion state.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSince 1990, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) has offered free cervical cancer screening to low-income, uninsured patients, increasing single time point screening and early detection rates. Little is known about NBCCEDP's longitudinal effectiveness. The objective of this study was to assess utilization of Kansas's NBCCEDP, early detection works (EDW) for one-time versus serial screening and compare rates of cervical dysplasia between groups.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients who received cervical cancer screening through EDW from 2001 to 2021. Demographic factors, Papanicolaou (Pap) test, and human papillomavirus (HPV) results were compared between patients with one screening versus multiple. Descriptive statistics were performed.
resultsFrom 2014 to 2021, 3.71-7.06% of eligible patients completed screening through EDW annually. 17.4% of 58,582 eligible patients were up-to-date with screening in 2020. Rural patients and those under age forty were less likely to have EDW screening. Of 43,916 ever-screened patients, 14,638 (33.3%) received multiple screenings. 77% of patients did not have HPV testing; rates were lower in serially screened patients. Cervical dysplasia rates differed minimally between groups.
conclusionDespite screening 24,017 patients over 7 years, EDW maintains up-to-date screening for under one-fourth of eligible Kansans. Young and rural patients less frequently access EDW. HPV testing is underutilized, which limits the negative predictive value of screening. Serial screening is largely used by low-risk patients currently. Identification and prioritization of serial screening in high risk could increase program impact.
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.