Trial reportAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2025
Low-cost interventions to increase uptake of cervical cancer screening among emergency department patients: Results of a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2025. 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.
- Test results and follow-up care stemming from an ED-based cervical cancer intervention.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2026Trial
- Joint segmentation and classification of cervical cells using U-Net and CNN ensemble for early detection of cervical cancer.Cancer cell international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer (CC) is preventable. CC screening decreases CC mortality. Emergency department (ED) patients are at disproportionately high risk for nonadherence with CC screening recommendations. The ED, therefore, is a target-rich environment for interventions to promote CC screening.
methodsWe conducted a randomized clinical trial to test and compare the efficacies of (1) basic referral for CC screening and (2) basic referral plus a text messaging intervention, grounded in behavioral change theory, to promote uptake of CC screening among ED patients. Participants aged 21-65, identified as in need of CC screening, were randomized to study arms and followed up at 150 days to assess interval CC screening uptake (primary outcome) and analyze methods-related moderators of intervention effects. Participants were recruited from a large, urban ED and a small, rural ED within the same health care system. Intervention arms were compared to historical controls.
resultsA total of 4035 patients were surveyed, with 1089 identified as requiring CC screening and subsequently randomized. Upon 150-day follow-up, 20% of individuals in the basic referral arm and 23% of individuals in the basic referral plus text messaging arm had obtained screening. Screening uptake in the historical control group was found to be 10% over a 150-day period. The overall difference between prospective arms was not significant (p = 0.219). However, moderation analysis found that women ≥40 years old demonstrated greater uptake of screening after the higher intensity intervention compared to the lower (p = 0.032). The differences in screening uptake between both interventions, individually and combined, when compared to controls was significant (p ≤ 0.001).
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that both of the evaluated low-intensity ED-based interventions significantly increase subsequent CC screening uptake compared to historical controls. The higher intensity intervention significantly increased screening uptake compared to the lower intensity intervention among women ≥40 years old.
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.