Trial reportThe American journal of emergency medicine2026
Test results and follow-up care stemming from an ED-based cervical cancer intervention.
Trial report in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMore than 4300 lives are lost to cervical cancer in the US annually. The survival rate is nearly 100% when precancerous lesions are identified and acted upon appropriately. A randomized controlled trial of two Emergency Department-based (ED) cervical cancer screening interventions demonstrated that patients in each condition received screening at rates far above an untreated historical control group. While screening represents a necessary first step in preventing cervical cancer morbidity and mortality, a lack of data on subsequent clinical care limits appreciation of ED-based screening efforts.
objectiveThe current study describes test results and subsequent care observed among patients who received documented cervical cancer screening following an ED-based intervention.
methodsInformation on HPV infections, Pap test results, and cervical cancer diagnoses documented in the electronic health record were collected from women ages 21-65 who were (a) enrolled into the above-mentioned trial and (b) received cervical cancer screening over the 365-days post enrollment.
results181 women received screening. Of those who had a Pap test, 12% had abnormal findings. Compared to a national rate of 3.8%, significantly elevated risk was observed (Z = 5.55, p < 0.001). High-risk HPV infection was observed in 15% among those tested, elevated from an estimated nationwide prevalence of 11% (Z = 1.63, p = 0.052). Notably, nearly half of patients who went on to have colposcopy and cervical biopsy did not have a routine women's health provider.
conclusionED-based cervical cancer screening interventions have meaningful positive impact on subsequent testing and care.
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.