SynthesisPloS one2025
Determinants of cervical cancer screening utilisation among women in the least developed countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- From Awareness to Action Study: Improving Human Papillomavirus Knowledge, Screening and Vaccine Uptake Among Mother-Adolescent Pairs in the HOMINY Study in Nigeria: A Longitudinal Study.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2026Article
- Epidemiology of high-risk HPV in Uzbekistan among 44,000 women - genotypes, risk profiles and screening needs in Uzbekistan.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Expression and clinical significance of CD155, FGL1, Galectin-9, and PD‑L1 in breast cancer with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsGlobally, cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women, and more than 90% of all cervical cancer-related deaths worldwide are recorded in resource-limited countries. The present review investigated the uptake rate of cervical cancer screening and identified the factors associated with screening service utilisation in the female populations of least developed countries (LDCs).
methodsFive electronic databases (EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PubMed) and grey literature were searched for relevant literature using the keywords of the included studies. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were included. Three reviewers performed critical appraisals using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Meta-analysis was performed to pool the quantitative results from comparable studies.
resultsA total of twenty-five studies were included in the review. The cervical cancer screening uptake rate in LDCs ranged from 4% to 21%. Multiple factors were associated with screening service utilisation among women in the LDCs, namely socio-demographic characteristics, including employment status (odds ratio (OR): 2.72; 95% CI: 1.97-3.76; p < 0.001); knowledge of cervical cancer and its screening (OR: 3.39; 95% CI: 2.00-5.75; p < 0.001); sexual and reproductive health-related factors such as parity status (OR: 2.73; 95% CI: 1.61-4.64; p = 0.002); healthcare providers' recommendations (OR: 5.32; 95% CI: 2.44-11.58; p < 0.001); perceived risk of developing cervical cancer (OR: 3.76; 95% CI: 2.62-5.38; p < 0.001); use of media for cervical cancer screening promotion, including radio; cultural factors; and myths and misconceptions about cervical cancer and its screening.
conclusionsThe uptake of cervical cancer screening among eligible women in the LDCs was notably low. The governments of these countries are advised to invest and allocate additional resources to advance policies and develop cervical cancer prevention programmes that are accessible, affordable, and acceptable.
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.