ArticleThe oncologist2026
Follow-up rescreening among women living with human immunodeficiency virus who tested positive and treated for cervical pre-cancer lesions in South Ethiopia.
Article in The oncologist, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWomen living with human immunodeficiency virus face a heightened risk of cervical cancer. Lack of follow-up rescreening among women with cervical lesions could result in increased risk of cancer-related morbidity and mortality.
methodsA retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted among 191 women living with HIV who tested positive for visual inspection with acetic acid and were treated from September 2020 to September 2023. A data extraction checklist was used to collect data from October 1, 2023 to March 30, 2024. Descriptive statistics was computed and then logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between the independent variables and follow-up rescreening. The association was ascertained using adjusted odds ratio (AOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical significance was declared at a P-value less than 0.05.
resultThe mean age of the participants was 36.88 (±7.29) years. Slightly less than one-third (60, 31.4%) of the women came back for follow-up rescreening within 3 years. Those women who were educated [AOR = 2.2, 95% CI: 1.03-4.68] and treated by Cryotherapy [AOR = 2.4, 95% CI: 1.1-5.4] were more likely to come back for rescreening compared to those who were uneducated and treated by thermal ablation, respectively.
conclusionFollow-up rescreening for cervical pre-cancer remains low. Women's educational status and treatment modality affect the follow-up rescreening. Proper counselling on post-treatment follow-up and available screening and treatment options is very crucial to improve adherence to protocol. A qualitative study is warranted to identify the challenges of follow-up rescreening.
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.