SynthesisBMC women's health2025
Utilization of cervical cancer screening and its associated factors among women living with HIV in East Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2025. 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.
- HIV care continuity for women in postconflict Tigray: assessing mother-to-child transmission rates, infant health and cervical cancer screening.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Cervical cancer screen-and-treat services at HIV treatment sites in Nigeria: findings from the ICON-3 Practice Based Research Network.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWomen living with HIV (WLHIV), mostly in East Africa, are six times more likely to develop cervical cancer and are a priority population for secondary prevention. Numerous primary studies report inconsistent, widely varying rates of cervical cancer screening (CCS) among WLHIV in the region. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize data from various primary studies to provide a conclusive estimate of CCS uptake among WLHIV in East Africa and to identify factors associated with screening utilization.
methodsThis review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO. Databases searched included Google Scholar, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Hinari, ScienceDirect, and other manual sources for studies published between January 2015 and April 2025. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment. Data were analyzed using STATA 17, employing a random-effects model due to high heterogeneity. Cochran's Q test (χ²) and Higgins I² statistics were used to identify heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and Egger's test. Associations were reported as pooled adjusted odds ratios (aOR), with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsThis meta-analysis pooled effect estimates from 46 studies with a total of 98,028 participants. The pooled CCS uptake among WLHIV in East Africa was 34.48% (95% CI: 30.61, 38.36) with high heterogeneity. Those who had knowledge (aOR = 2.96, 95% CI: 2.60, 3.38) and information (aOR = 3.95, 95% CI: 2.15, 7.28), with a family history of cervical cancer (aOR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.20, 3.96), high perceived vulnerability (aOR = 2.82, 95% CI: 1.65, 4.84), and low perceived barriers (aOR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.05, 3.65) were significantly associated with CCS uptake among WLHIV in East Africa.
conclusionThe percentage of WLHIV in East Africa who obtain CCS is far below the WHO's 70% target. The utilization of CCS was significantly associated with knowledge, information, family history of cervical cancer, perceived vulnerability, and barriers. Increased screening rates can be achieved by interventions that target raising awareness, providing information, reducing barriers, and focusing on women with a family history of cervical cancer.
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.