ReviewCancers2025
Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Guidelines.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Significance of High-Risk HPV Positivity with Negative Cytology: Can Further Evaluation Be Safely Delayed?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Integrated Cervical Self-Sampling for Cytology, High-Risk Human Papillomavirus, and Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing: A Prospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Needs and opportunities for improvement in the management and monitoring of gynaecological cancer in Spain.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Assessing the prevalence of non-use of cervical cancer screening in Khouribga, Morocco.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Age-Specific Risk of High-Grade Cervical Lesions in Unvaccinated Women: Implications for HPV Screening Policies in Low-Vaccination Settings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cervical Adenocarcinoma In Situ in Young Nulliparous Patient with Persistent ASC-US and Multiple-Type HPV Infections Without HPV 16 and 18 Types-Case Report.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- HPV-Driven Cervical Carcinogenesis: Genetic and Epigenetic Mechanisms and Diagnostic Approaches.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Demographic and Screening-to-Diagnosis Cascade Indicators for Risk Stratification in an Organized Cervical Cancer Screening Program: Evidence from 82,141 Women in Yunnan, China.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening in Transition: Global Challenges and Local Realities.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Integrative molecular diagnostics for HPV-driven cervical carcinogenesis: a translational review of mechanisms and multimodal risk stratification.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- Primary HPV Infection in Postmenopausal Women: A Cohort Study to Enable Risk-Stratified Management.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Review
- Evaluation of an intelligent digital platform for population management in cervical cancer screening.Cancer biology & medicine · 2025Observational
- Decoding protein lactylation in the pathogenesis and progression of gynecological cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical cancer remains one of the main causes of female mortality, especially in middle- and low-income countries, despite efforts towards the implementation of global vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV). The aim of this study was to review and compare the most recently published international guidelines providing recommendations on cervical cancer screening strategies among average and high-risk women. Thus, a comparative review of guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American Cancer Society (ACS), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), the Cancer Council Australia (CCA), and the European Guidelines (EG) was conducted. There is an overall agreement regarding the suggestions made for women younger than 21 and those older than 65, with all guidelines stating against routine screening, with the exceptions of CTFPHC and CCA that expand the age group to up to 70 and 75 years, respectively. Continuation of screening in older women is also suggested in those with a history of a precancerous lesion and those with inadequate screening. Most guidelines recommend routine screening at 30-65 years, while the WHO advises that screening should be prioritized at 30-49 years. HPV DNA testing is the method of choice recommended by most guidelines, followed by cytology as an alternative, except for CTFPHC, which refers to cytology only, with self-sampling being an acceptable method by most medical societies. Agreements exist regarding recommendations for specific groups, such as women with a history of total hysterectomy for benign reasons, women with a complete vaccination against HPV, individuals from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer communities and women with multiple sexual partners or early initiation of sexual activity. On the other hand, the age group of 21-29 is addressed differently by the reviewed guidelines, while differentiations also occur in the screening strategies in cases of abnormal screening results, in women with immunodeficiency, those with in utero exposure to diethylstilbestrole and pregnant women. The development of consistent practice protocols for the most appropriate cervical cancer screening programs seems to be of major importance to reduce mortality rates and safely guide everyday clinical practice.
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.