ArticleBMJ global health2025
Long-term outcomes after cervical cancer screening in El Salvador: primary human papillomavirus screen-and-treat compared with cytology.
Article in BMJ global health, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFrom 2012 to 2017, the Cervical Cancer Prevention in El Salvador (CAPE) piloted and scaled up a human papillomavirus (HPV) screen-and-treat intervention. Findings resulted in El Salvador's adoption of the strategy as part of the national programme, but long-term clinical outcomes are unknown. Here, we compare the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) and HPV infection after recommended screening intervals between two groups: women who participated in CAPE and a comparable group screened via cytology.
methodsCAPE participants who had undergone screening at least 5 years previously (screen-and-treat group) and women in the same age range with conventional cytology screening 2 to 3 years previously (cytology group) were recruited for repeat screening with primary HPV testing. Women with positive HPV results were referred for colposcopy and cervical biopsy to determine further management. Women with negative HPV results received recommendations for routine future screening according to national guidelines.
resultsA total of 6631 women were enrolled (screen-and-treat = 4087; cytology=2544). Significantly less CIN2+ was detected in the screen-and-treat group at 0.7% (29/4087) than in the cytology group at 2.1% (54/2544) (p<0.001) with a risk ratio of 0.41 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.61). HPV positivity was also lower in the screen-and-treat group at 9.5% (388/4077) compared with the cytology group at 11.5% (293/2445) (p=0.008).
conclusionAt the first round of repeat screening after the implementation of CAPE, women who underwent HPV testing in a screen-and-treat strategy had significantly less CIN2+ and HPV positivity compared with those who underwent cytology. These outcomes occurred despite a longer screening interval for HPV testing than cytology. Findings provide reassurance for women and health systems that primary HPV screen-and-treat programmes with extended screening intervals, like the one in El Salvador, are achievable and effective in low- and middle-income settings.
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.