SynthesisJournal of translational medicine2026
Cervical cancer screening policy inequality worldwide: a systematic review of disparities in access and implementation.
Synthesis in Journal of translational 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe rising global burden of cervical cancer and persistent inequalities in screening access underscore the need to strengthen implementation. Therefore, we compiled the cervical cancer screening guidelines from different countries/regions and evaluated their implementation status and coverage situation.
methodsIn this study, we conducted comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases (from their establishment to February 1, 2025), websites and the World Health Organization (WHO) database. Studies included in our analysis provide detailed information on the official cervical cancer screening recommendations for each country. All indicators were stratified based on factors such as human development index (HDI), income level, geographical location, WHO regions, disease risk, and age. The systematic review was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (registration number: CRD420251087263).
resultsOur study incorporated data from 77 countries/regions, only 62.3% (48/77) of them provided the year of published/updated protocol. Cytology was the primary screening test in 62 (80.5%) of 77 countries. Visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) was the most recommended test in low HDI countries. Relatively few countries had adopted Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as a primary screening method. Screening coverage was associated with HDI/income (low HDI: 12.43% vs. very high HDI: 49.74%; high-income: 51.68% vs. low income and middle-income countries [LMICs]:34.45%), with high-risk regions (29.88%) significantly lower than other areas (46.76%). Age-stratified analysis showed minimal coverage in the 20-29 and 70-79 groups, while coverage peaked in the 30-39 group. Our results also showed substantial heterogeneity in screening quality indicators (positive rate, further assessment rate, detection rate, and positive predictive value [PPV]) due to factors such as differences in the HDI.
conclusionsThis study highlights global inequities in cervical cancer screening guidelines, particularly in the transition of screening methods among different countries/regions. Global cervical cancer coverage remains significantly below the target of 70%. Accelerate screening strategies, improve screening-diagnosis-treatment accessibility, establish monitoring systems, and strengthen global cooperation.
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.