Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40647371›Full record

ReviewCancers2025

Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Guidelines.

Evgenia Zampaoglou, Eirini Boureka, Evdoxia Gounari, Polyxeni-Natalia Liasidi, Ioannis Kalogiannidis, Zoi Tsimtsiou, Anna-Bettina Haidich, Ioannis Tsakiridis, Themistoklis Dagklis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Review
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

9 authors.

Evgenia ZampaoglouDepartment of Hygiene, Social & Preventive Medicine and Medical Statistics, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Eirini BourekaThird Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Evdoxia GounariDepartment of Hygiene, Social & Preventive Medicine and Medical Statistics, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-3010-5677
Polyxeni-Natalia LiasidiThird Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Ioannis KalogiannidisThird Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Zoi TsimtsiouDepartment of Hygiene, Social & Preventive Medicine and Medical Statistics, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-9626-9295
Anna-Bettina HaidichDepartment of Hygiene, Social & Preventive Medicine and Medical Statistics, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-5100-8799
Ioannis TsakiridisThird Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0003-4337-7871
Themistoklis DagklisThird Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-2863-5839

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cervical cancercomparisoncytologyguidelinesHPV testingpreventionscreening

Identifiers

PMID40647371
PMCPMC12249097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.