ArticleO&G open2025
Association Between Age and Race and Cervical Cancer Stage.
Article in O&G open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Demographic and Screening-to-Diagnosis Cascade Indicators for Risk Stratification in an Organized Cervical Cancer Screening Program: Evidence from 82,141 Women in Yunnan, China.International journal of women's health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends cervical cancer screening for people with a cervix between the ages of 21 and 65 with cytology and human papillomavirus cotesting starting at age 30. These broad guidelines are intended to improve cervical cancer prevention and early detection but apply only to those with normal results. Surveillance guidelines for those with abnormal results are different and may not be widely followed. There is concern that older women and women of color may not benefit from these guidelines to the same extent as younger White women. To address a gap in the literature by conducting a retrospective cross-sectional study using the National Cancer Database to assess the relationship between age and race and late-stage cervical cancer diagnosis.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using data obtained from the National Cancer Database for the years 2004-2022. Women between 21 and 85 years of age with a known cervical cancer stage were included in this study. Age, race, and the combined effect of age and race were the exposures of interest. The outcome of interest was the diagnosis of late-stage (III and IV) compared with early-stage (I and II) cervical cancer. The association among race, ethnicity, and late-stage cervical cancer diagnosis was examined with multivariate-adjusted logistic regression models adjusted for insurance status, facility type, region, education, and income. A likelihood ratio test was used to test for the interaction between age and race.
resultsFrom 2004 to 2022, there were 102,131 early-stage (62.6%) and 61,076 late-stage (37.4%) cervical cancers in the National Cancer Database. Women 65 years of age and older had significantly higher odds of being diagnosed with late-stage cervical cancer (multivariate odds ratio [OR
conclusionThese data support the hypothesis that women 65 years of age and older are at increased risk for late-stage cervical cancer compared with younger women. These findings suggest that the increased risk at later ages may be attributable to lack of adherence to screening guidelines or recommendations for surveillance and management of screening abnormalities. These findings have important implications for upstream structural drivers of these disparities and the need for equity-driven strategies that address the systemic barriers affecting older women across all racial and ethnic groups, especially non-Hispanic Black women.
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.