ArticlePreventive medicine2025
U.S. national trends in cervical cancer screening by sexual orientation and race/ethnicity in cisgender women.
Article in Preventive medicine, 2025. 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.
- "Give me the sense that I matter:" Queer women's recommendations for an ideal cervical cancer screening exam and pathways to screening equity.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionChanges in up-to-date cervical cancer screening (CCS) over time by sexual orientation and race/ethnicity were estimated to identify trends in screening disparities.
methodsThis 2024 retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of National Health Interview Survey data (years 2013, 2015, 2019 and 2021) included 40,818 cisgender women aged 21-65 without hysterectomy. Joinpoint analysis was performed to calculate the annual percent change (APC) of up-to-date CCS from 2013 to 2021. Logistic regression (years 2019 and 2021) was used to describe the relationship between up-to-date screening and sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and the interaction thereof.
resultsThe adjusted odds of up-to-date CCS were 22 % lower for lesbian, gay, and/or bisexual (LGB) compared to heterosexual women (OR = 0.78, p = 0.01). Up-to-date CCS fell significantly from 80.50 % in 2013 to 75.00 % in 2021 for heterosexual respondents (APC = -0.97 %, p < 0.01), but was stable across years for LGB respondents. Up-to-date CCS decreased for Hispanic (APC = -1.52, p < 01) and non-Hispanic White only heterosexual women (APC = -0.63, p = 0.02). It also decreased for non-Hispanic Black/African American only LGB women (APC = -2.67, p < 0.01) falling from 85.22 % in 2013 to 67.91 % in 2021. By multiplicative interaction, LGB Hispanic women were more up-to-date than their heterosexual counterparts (p = 0.05).
conclusionsIn 2021 there were approximately 19.72 million women aged 21-65 who were not up-to-date with CCS. 1.76 million LGB women were not up-to-date for CCS, and a greater proportion of these women identified as non-Hispanic Black/African American. CCS must be improved for all cisgender women, and specific attention should be given to those who identify as LGB and/or Black/African American.
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.