Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40083441›Full record

ReviewEClinicalMedicine2025

The Global Fund, Cervical Cancer, and HPV infections: what can low- and middle-income countries do to accelerate progress by 2030?

Runcie C W Chidebe, Alile Osayi, Julie S Torode

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

3 authors.

Runcie C W ChidebeProject PINK BLUE- Health & Psychological Trust Centre, Abuja, Nigeria.
Alile OsayiAspire Coronation Trust Foundation, Nigeria.
Julie S TorodeInstitute of Cancer Policy, Kings College, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The footprint of cervical cancer mirrors the impact of global inequity and inequality on the right to health for girls and women. While today, cervical cancer is a relatively rare cause of death in Europe, North America, and Australia, almost 94% of deaths in 2022 occurred in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Governments adopted the WHO global strategy to eliminate cervical cancer. Still, the stark reality is that many countries may not reach the 90:70:90 targets by 2030 without political commitment and a sense of urgency. We call for enhanced advocacy for the right to prevention services and political actions to mobilise global funding, local philanthropic support, and innovative financing. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an African coalition raised over $20 million to mitigate the impact of the pandemic. Positive lessons from this response should be replicated to save millions of women and girls at risk of cervical cancer in LMICs. There is a need for a global fund for cancer; regional blocs like the African Union need to recognise the disproportionate burden and establish continental funding mechanisms to enable high-burden countries to make crucial upfront health systems investments that will put their countries on the pathway to cervical cancer elimination. Funding: This study was not funded.

Indexed as

Cervical cancer eliminationGlobal fund for cancerGlobal inequityHPVMeeting global targetsPatient engagementPrevention

Identifiers

PMID40083441
PMCPMC11905856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.