ArticleInternational journal of women's health2026
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.
Article in International journal of women's health, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess an organized cervical cancer screening-to-diagnosis cascade in Yunnan Province, China, and to examine the associations of demographic factors, HPV genotyping, and cytology results with the detection of cervical precancer and cancer. Methods: This retrospective analysis included 82,141 women who participated in a government-supported free screening program between January 2023 and July 2025. The primary endpoint was the final integrated diagnosis based on cytology, colposcopy, and histopathology, with histopathology serving as the diagnostic gold standard. Associations between candidate variables and the outcome were assessed using chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression, and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were reported. Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) was used for multidimensional visualization of high-risk clustering patterns. Results: Among the participants, 1678 (2.04%) were classified as positive for cervical cancer or precancerous lesions. In the descriptive analysis, positivity rates showed significant non-linear variation across age groups, with higher proportions in women aged < 25 and ≥65 years, and were also higher among women with lower educational attainment and in some ethnic minority groups, including Hani and Dai women. In multivariable analysis, age remained significant overall, although only women aged 35-44 years had higher adjusted odds than those aged 45-54 years, while ethnicity was not significant overall except for a higher risk observed among Dai women. HPV positivity showed the strongest association with the outcome, and risk increased markedly across cytology categories from NILM to HSIL. UMAP visualization further showed that high-risk cases formed compact clusters enriched for HPV16/18 positivity and high-grade cytology. Conclusion: In this organized screening program, HPV status and cytology were strongly associated with the detection of cervical precancer and cancer. Educational level and some demographic factors were also associated with variation in screening outcomes after adjustment, although these associations were more modest than those observed in the descriptive analysis. Demographic indicators such as age and educational level may be useful for identifying underserved groups and informing targeted referral and follow-up strategies within organized screening programmes.
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.