SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025
The effect of healthcare disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic on colposcopy services and practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of healthcare disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic on colposcopy services and practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe healthcare reorganization during the COVID-19 pandemic affected colposcopy services and cervical cancer prevention, particularly in those countries where healthcare systems were already under-resourced. This review aimed to quantify the reduction in colposcopy services across countries during the COVID-19 pandemic and to determine whether the data source per study and cervical cancer screening coverage per country influenced the extent of these reductions. MATERIAL AND
methodsStudies reporting comparative data on colposcopy services between the COVID-19 pre-pandemic and pandemic period were included. MEDLINE, Embase, EMCare, Covid-19 Research, British Nursing Index, APA PsycINFO, and Allied and Complimentary Medicine databases were searched for studies published from March 2020 to December 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for risk of bias assessment. The number of colposcopies, cervical treatments, pre-invasive lesions diagnoses, and cervical cancer diagnoses per month were compared between the pre-pandemic (before March 2020) and pandemic period (after March 2020). The effect measure was the standardized mean difference. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the chi-squared test and quantified with the I
resultsThirteen studies were included. Twelve were of good/high quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The standardized mean difference between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods was -1.60 (95% CI -2.49 to -0.72, p = 0.004) for colposcopies (4 studies, I
conclusionsDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, a reduction in colposcopies, cervical treatments, pre-invasive lesions diagnoses, and invasive cancer diagnoses was observed. Since a screening coverage of <70% heightened these declines, increasing such coverage could lead to better resilience of cervical cancer prevention services to future crises.
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.