ReviewJournal of medicine and life2025
Cervical cancer screening in Europe and Romania: a review of policies, progress, and persistent disparities.
Review in Journal of medicine and life, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cervical Cancer Screening Activity at an Accredited Centre in Romania, 2018-2025: COVID-19 Disruption, Recovery and the Transition to Primary HPV Testing.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Veil-Based Collector Device Enabling Self-Collected Cervicovaginal Sampling for Site-of-Care Primary HPV-Based Cervical Cancer and Sexually Transmitted Infections Screening: A Pilot Feasibility Study in Romania.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Cervical Cancer Paradox in Eastern Europe: How Knowledge and Institutional Trust Shape HPV Vaccination Attitudes in Romania.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Observational
- Agreement and Diagnostic Performance of Urinary HPV Testing Versus Clinician-Collected Cervico-Vaginal Sampling: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study in a Romanian Cohort.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related death among women globally, despite being largely preventable through human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and regular screening. While many European countries have made significant progress in reducing incidence and mortality, Romania continues to report the highest rates within the European Union. This narrative review synthesized data from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar to evaluate cervical cancer screening policies across Europe, with a particular focus on Romania. The review included studies on HPV vaccination, cytology- and HPV-based screening, national program implementation, and public health strategies. Countries with organized, population-based screening programs and high HPV vaccine coverage, such as the Netherlands, Finland, and the UK, demonstrate lower incidence and mortality. In contrast, Romania faces persistent systemic barriers: limited public awareness, insufficient infrastructure, low screening participation (<20%), and suboptimal HPV vaccine uptake. Efforts to align national policies with WHO and EU cancer control strategies remain fragmented. Romania illustrates the deep disparities in cervical cancer prevention within Europe. Strategic reforms, including transitioning to HPV-based screening, expanding access to vaccination, enabling self-sampling, and enhancing public education, are critical. Integration into broader EU frameworks such as Europe's Beating Cancer Plan may accelerate progress. While the tools for cervical cancer prevention are well established, Romania's case underscores the need for systemic, context-specific interventions to reduce disease burden and promote equity across Europe.
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.