ArticleInternational journal of cancer2026
Health care policy trial of primary human papillomavirus-based cervical screening in Denmark: Comparison of three triage algorithms.
Article in International journal of cancer, 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.
- Health Care Policy Implementation Trial of Primary Human Papillomavirus-Based Cervical Screening in Denmark.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Health care policy trial of primary human papillomavirus-based cervical screening in Denmark: Comparison of three triage algorithms.International journal of cancer · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Women 30-59 years were allocated to either HPV-based screening or cytology-based screening in this Danish health care policy trial. The optimal triage of HPV-positive women could be a combination of cytology triage with HPV genotyping or p16/Ki67 staining. We report number of screen positives, colposcopies, and cervical lesions of three different triage algorithms (p16/Ki67, HPV16/18, or HPV16/18/31/33/52) in HPV-positive women with low-grade cytological abnormalities. We included 178,317 women with a sample in 2021 of which 91,517 were screened with HPV and 86,800 with cytology. All women were followed for 18 months. Almost three times as many women screened positive with HPV-based screening compared to cytology-based screening (RR 2.99, 95% 2.93-3.05) and colposcopies derived from the screening program were also more common (RR 1.68, 95% 1.63-1.73). p16/Ki67 triage resulted in more colposcopies (RR 1.86, 95% 1.76-1.95) than HPV16/18 (RR 1.54, 95% 1.44-1.65) and HPV16/18/31/33/52 (RR 1.63, 95% 1.55-1.71). The excess in colposcopy referrals was reduced when non-screening-derived colposcopies were included (intention-to-treat). Nevertheless, more women with CIN2 or worse were detected in the HPV group than in the cytology group per screened woman; in the p16/Ki67 triage group (RR 1.65, 95% 1.54-1.77), in the HPV16/18 group (RR 1.36, 95% 1.23-1.50), and in the HPV16/18/31/33/52 group (RR 1.48, 95% 1.37-1.59). HPV-based screening, as compared with cytology screening, resulted in more screen positives, but all three triage algorithms substantially reduced the excess number of referrals to colposcopy. p16/Ki67 compared to triage with HPV16/18 may detect more cervical lesions.
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.