ArticleBMC cancer2025
Survival status and predictors of mortality among patients with cervical cancer in two oncology units in Northwest Ethiopia: a retrospective follow-up study.
Article in BMC cancer, 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.
- Sexual health needs and challenges among ageing women in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.Frontiers in aging · 2026Pooled it
- Disparities in survival after cervical cancer between tribal and rural women in Tamil Nadu, India: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is the most frequently diagnosed malignancy and a leading cause of death among women in sub-Saharan Africa, including Ethiopia. Despite its high mortality rate, little is known about survival outcomes and predictors of mortality for patients with cervical cancer in Northwest Ethiopia.
methodsA hospital based retrospective follow-up study was conducted among patients with cervical cancer diagnosed and treated from 1 February 2017 to 30 January 2022 at Felege Hiwot Hospital and University of Gondar Hospitals. Data were collected using a data abstraction checklist and telephone interviews. The Kaplan–Meier and the log-rank test were used to estimate and compare survival probabilities. Sensitivity analysis was performed assuming that patients lost to follow-up may have died 6 months after their last visit. The Cox regression model identified predictors of mortality with 95% confidence intervals, considering p < 0.05 as statistically significant.
resultsThe overall survival rate at 52 months of follow-up was 18.63%. The survival rates at 2, 3, and 4 years were 81.2%, 55.89%, and 37.26%, respectively. In the worst-case analysis, survival at 2, 3, and 4 years declined to 65%, 39%, and 26%, respectively. Significant predictors of mortality included age ≥ 50 years (AHR = 3.4, 95% CI: 1.80–6.48, p < 0.0001), HIV positivity (AHR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.55–5.61, p = 0.001), Travel distance > 65 km (AHR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.28–3.08, p = 0.002), no history of surgery (AHR = 2.8, 95% CI: 1.33–5.71, p = 0.006), and advanced stage at diagnosis ; Stage III: (AHR = 3.4, 95% CI: 1.95–5.79, p < 0.001), Stage IV (AHR = 6.7, 95% CI: 3.35–13.58, p < 0.001). However, residence, comorbidity, patient delay, anemia and menopausal status were not significant predictors of mortality (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe overall survival rate for patients with cervical cancer was low in this study. The identified predictors highlight the need to expand cervical cancer screening, diagnostic, and treatment services, especially in regions lacking radiotherapy facilities. Special focus should also be placed on elderly women, and women living with HIV.
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.