ArticleThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology2026
Accuracy of Self-Reported Cervical Screening Status Among Pregnant Women.
Article in The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of self-collected cervical screening in an under-screened, culturally and linguistically diverse antenatal population: a quality improvement study.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Self-Reported Cervical Screening Status Among Pregnant Women.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPregnancy provides a special opportunity to improve cervical screening test (CST) uptake and reduce cervical cancer. Screening in Australia is free for Medicare-eligible women ≥ 25 years if performed 5-yearly, but not sooner. Either women's self-reported last CST date or the National Cancer Screening Register (NCSR) can inform screening needs. However, accessing the NCSR is relatively difficult in public antenatal care.
aimsTo assess if pregnant women's self-reported last CST year is reliable in determining whether to offer CST in pregnancy or not.
methodsA retrospective Australian hospital study compared the self-reported last CST recorded in the maternity database to NCSR records for all Medicare-eligible women ≥ 25 years booked-in for public antenatal care between 1 June and 30 November 2023.
resultsThe cohort (n = 1772) had median age 33 years (interquartile range 29-36). Nearly half (n = 862; 49%) were CST-overdue/never-screened. Self-reported last CST dates were concordant with the NCSR for 80% (n = 1420) of participants in terms of needing (35%) or not needing (45%) a CST. However, 244 (14%) over-reported being CST-current when they were actually overdue/never-screened, while 108 (6%) under-reported their CST-currency. Of the 862 women due for a CST, over-reporting represented 28%. If clinicians relied solely on self-reporting, these women would miss out on needed CST screening.
conclusionMeasures to improve the reliability of Australian women's self-reported last CST are needed. This includes clinicians ensuring a woman always knows if a CST has been collected, the NCSR sending CST results to women (not just their practitioners) and promoting easier NCSR database accessibility for women.
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.