ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Barriers to the Equitable Implementation of Risk-Based Cervical Cancer Management Guidelines.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. 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.
- Gaps in care across the cancer screening continuum for cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Process Mapping to Compare and Improve Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results in Two US Healthcare Systems within the PROSPR Consortium.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology provides risk-based management guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening test result management. It is not known whether populations facing inequities in primary care delivery have the prior screening history needed to take advantage of risk-based management of abnormal cervical cancer screening results.
objectiveDetermine the prevalence and associations of unknown screening history for people with an abnormal cervical cancer screening result.
designRetrospective multi-center population-based study of three large, structurally diverse healthcare systems in Washington state, Massachusetts, and Dallas County, Texas.
participantsFemales ages 25-65 at index abnormal Pap cytology or positive Human Papillomavirus (HPV) result from 2010 to 2019 (n = 63,739). MAIN MEASURE(S): Unknown cervical cancer screening history, assessed as missing or insufficient documentation of cervical screening, diagnostic tests, and procedures extracted from administrative data and electronic health records of health systems. KEY
resultsOver a third of patients had unknown cervical cancer screening history prior to the index abnormal test during the study period (38.3% overall, 27.6 to 52.3% across healthcare systems). Patients empaneled to a primary care provider at the time of their abnormal test had a lower prevalence of an unknown screening history than those who were not (prevalence ratio 0.74, 95% CL 0.72-0.75). Those who were uninsured or had multiple insurance transitions had a higher prevalence of unknown screening history than those who were commercially insured (PR 1.13, 95% CL 1.09-1.16). There were health system-specific associations with having an unknown screening history.
conclusionsIn three large health systems, historical screening data needed to implement ASCCP risk-based guidelines were frequently missing. Our findings call for greater attention to potential management inequities for patients with missing data. Importantly, more attention is needed to address potential primary care access barriers to equitable delivery of risk-based cervical cancer surveillance and care.
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.