ArticleBMC cancer2025
Knowledge, attitude, and practice towards uterine cervical cancer screening in Egyptian females: a nationwide cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC cancer, 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.
- Cervical cancer and screening: Knowledge, attitudes, and adherence among university students in Italy.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Awareness level of cancer risk factors and warning signs among adults in Mansoura District, Egypt.BMC public health · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among women worldwide; it is ranked the 4th most common cancer among women globally. The current recommendation for cervical cancer (CC) screening involves the use of cytology examination methods like Pap smear. However, there is a lack of data on the practice of Pap smear screening in Egypt. Furthermore, understanding the knowledge, attitudes, and barriers related to cervical cancer screening among potential participants is crucial.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we conducted interviews with female patients aged 21 years or more who visited outpatient clinics in six university hospitals across Egypt. The survey aimed to assess participants' compliance with CC screening guidelines, their knowledge of and attitude toward CC screening, and their perception of potential barriers.
resultsA total of 897 participants from the six study centers completed the survey. Only a small percentage (1.1%) of participants had undergone CC screening, although only (0.8%) of the participants were referred to do CC screening. The referral rate was more likely to be higher in participants who had one of their first-degree relatives or the surrounding people with a history of CC compared to those who have no one with CC (37.5% vs. 0.4%, P < 0.001; 5% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.035 respectively). Moreover, the referral rate was higher among participants who discussed CC and CC screening with their physicians (15.8% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001; 23.5% vs. 0.3%, P < 0.001 respectively). Knowledge of CC screening was limited, with only 2.7% of respondents demonstrating good actual knowledge. However, after introducing the concept of CC screening to all participants, the majority (74.6%) showed a positive attitude towards undergoing the procedure. Lack of knowledge about the procedure, its tool, the place to do it, and financial burden were cited as the most common barriers to CC screening (79.8%, 65.9%, 64.2%, and 53.2%, respectively).
conclusionDespite inadequate knowledge about CC screening, there is a positive attitude toward it among eligible participants in Egypt. This lack of knowledge likely contributes to low compliance with current CC screening guidelines and calls for national-level efforts to address this issue.
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.