Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39979520›Full record

ReviewCurrent HIV/AIDS reports2025

Addressing Global Disparities in Cervical Cancer Burden: A Narrative Review of Emerging Strategies.

Kalpana Gopalkrishnan, Roksana Karim

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current HIV/AIDS reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Kalpana GopalkrishnanDepartment of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Roksana KarimDepartment of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. rkarim@usc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewCervical cancer burden is disproportionately higher in low to middle income countries, especially in countries with a high human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) burden. This review investigates barriers to implementation and assesses current progress in cervical cancer screening in lower resource settings by reviewing technologies and strategies that have already been implemented in low to middle income countries. RECENT

findingsSeveral novel innovations embrace the recent World Health Organization (WHO) update to screening guidelines that recommends a "screen and treat" approach rather than a "screen, triage and treat" approach. Innovations include human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling, portable cervical visualization devices, and creative large-scale approaches to increase screening accessibility. Overall, a low-cost, accurate, point-of-care screening test could alleviate most of the barriers associated with cervical cancer screening in lower resource settings. Further research into the development of a low-cost HPV test in conjunction with the HPV vaccine and other screening tools could expedite progress.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerHealthcare DisparitiesPapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsDeveloping CountriesFemaleGlobal HealthHIV InfectionsHumansMass ScreeningCervical cancerLow to middle income countryScreeningTechnology

Identifiers

PMID39979520
PMCPMC11842523

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.