ArticleNature communications2025
A randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to compare the efficacy of 'HPV screen, triage and treat' with 'HPV screen and treat' approach for cervical cancer prevention among women living with HIV.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screen-and-treat: a sustainable solution for cervical cancer elimination in low and middle income countries.BMJ oncology · 2026Review
- The relationship between CTCs, TFD and postoperative prognosis of cervical cancer patients and the construction of prediction models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- HPV Vaccine Uptake and Cervical Cancer Trends in Panama: A Reference Point for Future Impact Studies.Vaccines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We report results of a randomized controlled trial to compare 'HPV screen and treat' (Arm 1) and 'HPV screen, triage and treat' (Arm 2) in women living with HIV (WLHIV), using visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) as the triaging test. Treatment was offered to all HPV-positive women in Arm 1 and to VIA-positive women in Arm 2 with either thermal ablation or large loop excision. All women underwent a repeat HPV test one year after randomization. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of HPV clearance of Arm 2 at one-year follow up when compared to Arm 1. Of 544 HPV-positive consenting WLHIV, 433 were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to trial arms. At baseline, CIN 2/3 lesions were detected in 16.7% and 13.3% women in Arm 1 and Arm 2 respectively. HPV clearance was observed in 56.6% (95%CI 48.9-64.1) women in Arm 1 and 41.4% (95%CI 34.3-48.7) women in Arm 2 at follow-up in the intention-to-treat population (P = 0.004). 'HPV screen, VIA triage and treat' strategy was non-inferior to the 'screen and treat' strategy as the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval from the regression model was greater than 0.49 in both intention-to-treat analysis (RR 0.73, 95%CI 0.59-0.91) and per-protocol analysis (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.60-0.93) according to the pre-specified analysis plan. Clinical trial registration: CTRI/2020/02/023349.
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.