Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41401307›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP)2026

Impact of anal precancer screening on patient-reported outcomes among men-who-have-sex-with-men living with HIV: a scoping review.

Emmi Suonpera, Yomna Gharib, Deirdre Sally, Shema Tariq, Richard Gilson

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Emmi SuonperaCentre for Clinical Research in Infection and Sexual Health, Institute for Global Health, University College London.
Yomna GharibCentre for Clinical Research in Infection and Sexual Health, Institute for Global Health, University College London.
Deirdre SallyCentre for Clinical Research in Infection and Sexual Health, Institute for Global Health, University College London.
Shema TariqCentre for Clinical Research in Infection and Sexual Health, Institute for Global Health, University College London.
Richard GilsonCentre for Clinical Research in Infection and Sexual Health, Institute for Global Health, University College London.

Funding

Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust CNWL RSG 2020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interest in human papillomavirus (HPV)-related anal cancer screening among high-risk groups like men-who-have-sex-with-men living with HIV (MSMLWH) is high. Yet, the psychosocial impact of screening is not yet clear. We reviewed literature on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) associated with anal precancer screening among MSMLWH to identify current research priorities. In this scoping review, inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed studies of any type published in English since 2000 reporting PROs after anal precancer screening in MSMLWH. A database search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and APA PsycINFO) was conducted in December 2024. Data were extracted independently by two authors using a standardised form. Eleven papers (nine cohorts) met the inclusion criteria, mostly from high-income countries. Participants were generally over 40 and had lived with HIV for greater than or equal to 10 years. All were involved in anal precancer screening studies; none were part of routine screening programmes. Ethnicity data were inconsistently reported. Papers covered four PRO domains: health-related quality of life (HRQoL), psychological impact, experience of screening procedures, and physical health. Screening was well-tolerated with minimal psychological or HRQoL impact. Negative impact related to screening procedures did not persist beyond receiving results. Low levels of pain and discomfort (≤11%) were reported. Some reported increased cancer-related worry, especially when further examination was needed. Systematic collection of PROs in this context remains uncommon. Existing evidence suggests screening is generally well tolerated with minimal psychological burden, though some studies note psychosocial effects. Using validated PRO measures can guide targeted support and inform the development of screening programmes that minimise psychological adverse effects.

Indexed as

Anus NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHIV InfectionsHomosexuality, MalePapillomavirus InfectionsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPrecancerous ConditionsHuman Papillomavirus VirusesHumansMaleQuality of Lifeanal precancerHIVmen-who-have-sex-with-menpatient-reported outcomesscreening

Identifiers

PMID41401307
PMCPMC13412347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.