Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39821397›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Delivering Guideline-Concordant Care for Patients With High-Risk HPV and Normal Cytologic Findings.

Jasmin A Tiro, Jacquelyn M Lykken, Patricia M Chen, Cheryl R Clark, Sarah Kobrin, Jessica Chubak, Sarah Feldman, Claudia Werner, Steven J Atlas, Michelle I Silver and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Process Mapping to Compare and Improve Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results in Two US Healthcare Systems within the PROSPR Consortium.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jasmin A TiroDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Division of the Biological Sciences, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Jacquelyn M LykkenPeter O'Donnell School of Public Health, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Patricia M ChenPeter O'Donnell School of Public Health, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Cheryl R ClarkDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sarah KobrinHealthcare Delivery Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.
Jessica ChubakKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle.
Sarah FeldmanDivision of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Claudia WernerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Steven J AtlasDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Michelle I SilverDepartment of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Jennifer S HaasDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Funding

PROSPR METRICS CISNET Collaboration Investigating Impact of Structural Racism/Discrimination on Cervical Screening Moonshot SupplementUM1CA221940 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI CHUBAK, JESSICA, HAAS, JENNIFER S · 2018 to 2023
$15.9M
NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA221940
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: As US health care systems shift to human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening, more patients are receiving positive high-risk non-16/18 genotype HPV results and negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM) cytological findings. Risk-based management guidelines recommend 2 consecutive negative annual results to return to routine screening. Objective: To quantify patterns of surveillance testing and associated outcomes for patients after an HPV-positive results and NILM cytologic findings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed patients in the METRICS (Multi-level Optimization of the Cervical Cancer Screening Process in Diverse Settings and Populations) cohort of the PROSPR II (Population-Based Research to Optimize the Screening Process) Cervical Consortium. Population-based data were obtained from 3 diverse health care systems (Mass General Brigham [MGB] in Massachusetts, Kaiser Permanente Washington [KPWA] in Washington, and Parkland Health [PH] in Texas) in the METRICS cohort. Participants were patients aged 21 to 65 years who received an HPV-positive (non-16/18 or pooled genotypes) result and NILM cytologic finding from January 2010 to August 2018 and were followed up through December 2019. Data analyses were performed between April 2021 and November 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Test receipt and outcomes delivered within 16 months after the index result (round 1 surveillance). Results: The final sample across the 3 health care systems comprised 13 158 female patients (3228 Hispanic or Latine [24.5%], 1990 non-Hispanic African American or Black [15.1%], 749 non-Hispanic Asian [5.7%], and 6559 non-Hispanic White [49.8%] individuals). Sociodemographic characteristics varied by site, with more non-Hispanic White (2277 [63.7%] and 4061 [61.2%]) and commercially insured patients (3137 [87.8%] and 4365 [65.7%]) at KPWA and MGB, and more Hispanic or Latine (1664 [56.5%]) and uninsured patients (2352 [79.9%]) at PH. During round 1 surveillance, 43.7% of patients were tested, of whom 18.2% (2394) had HPV-negative results and NILM cytologic findings and 25.5% (3351) had abnormal results. Many patients remained in the cohort and were untested through round 1 surveillance (overall: 49.4% [6505]; across sites: 39.0% [1395] to 69.4% [2043]), while fewer exited the cohort (overall: 6.9% [908]; across sites: 0.2% [12] to 24.6% [879]). Groups with lower odds of timely testing were younger adults (aged 25-29 vs 30-39 years: adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.65; 95% CL, 0.53-0.81), non-Hispanic African American or Black compared with non-Hispanic White patients (AOR, 0.78; 95% CL, 0.68-0.89), and those with Medicaid compared with commercial insurance (AOR, 0.81; 95% CL, 0.72-0.91), while those with a primary care clinician were more likely to have timely testing (AOR, 1.44; 95% CL, 1.21-1.70). Cancer was diagnosed in 10 patients (0.2%) untested in round 1 surveillance compared with 0 cancers in those with an HPV-negative results and NILM cytologic findings. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that among patients with HPV-positive results and NILM cytologic findings, less than half received a surveillance cotest during the guideline-recommended time frame. Health care systems should monitor annual surveillance and gather evidence on interventions to optimize the delivery of surveillance testing.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerGuideline AdherencePapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPapillomaviridaePractice Guidelines as TopicYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39821397
PMCPMC11742536

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.