ArticleResearch square2025
Comparing a "See-and-Treat" HPV-Based to VIA-Based Cervical Cancer Prevention Strategies Among Women Living with HIV in Cameroon: A Pilot Study.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Women living with HIV (WLWH) have a higher vulnerability to developing cervical cancer and should be prioritized for screening. The objective of this study was to test the feasibility of integrating HPV-based vis-à-vis VIA-based cervical cancer prevention services into routine HIV Care and Treatment in Cameroon. Methods: We conducted a comparative cross-sectional study of two groups of WLWH aged 25 years and above; a group screened with Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA (HPV Group) and a group screened with Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (VIA) (VIA Group), using the see-and-treat approach. The proportion of treatment-eligible women who received treatment per screening approach was calculated. Results: A total of 325 WLWH were screened as follows; VIA Group, N = 184 (45.5%) and HPV Group, N = 177 (54.5%). Among these 325 women, 74 (22.8%) were positive for either HPV and/or VIA. Of these 74, 64 (86.5%) were of the HPV Group and 10 (13.5%) were of the VIA Group. Among the 74 positive women, 14 (18.9%) received treatment. Among the 36.2% treatment-eligible women in the HPV Group, 5/64 (9.4%) had VIA-positive lesions. Among the 10 women in the VIA Group who tested positive for VIA, only 1 (10%) received treatment. Whereas, among the 5 women with VIA-positive lesions in the HPV Group, 4 (80%) received treatment. Conclusion: The treatment uptake was low (18.9%). Performing screening without treating the treatment-eligible cases will not create any reduction in cervical cancer morbidity/mortality. Therefore, more strategies are needed to enable WLWH who screen positive for HPV/VIA get adequate treatment.
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.