ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Cervical screening under wartime: resilience and quality of laboratory services in Ukraine during the Russian invasion.
Article in Frontiers in public 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Since February 2022, Ukraine has been facing the challenges of active armed conflict, undermining its healthcare system. Despite the ongoing war, the national cervical cancer screening program was launched in 2025. However, little is known about whether laboratory diagnostic quality can be maintained under these conditions. This study aimed to assess the resilience of cervical cancer screening services in Ukraine during wartime by evaluating the temporal dynamics of PAP smears, HPV testing, and their quality indicators. Materials and methods: This single-center, repeated cross-sectional study included laboratory data collected on PAP smears from 946,451 cases and 114,974 HPV tests retrieved from the database of the Medical Laboratory CSD in 2021-2025. The Annual Bethesda System 2014 (BS 2014) category proportions and quality metrics (including the ASC/SIL ratio and non-diagnostic rate) were assessed and compared with the benchmarks from BS 2014 and the College of American Pathologists (CAP). HPV testing data included overall positivity rates and HPV 16/18 genotype distribution. Results: The volume of PAP tests decreased by 21.5% in 2022; however, there was a significant recovery in 2023, with an increase of 85.3% in 2025 compared to the pre-war baseline (2021). Each Bethesda category proportion for every year aligned within international benchmark ranges. The five-year CSD medians were as follows: NILM-91.27% (89.24-91.61%); ASC-US-4.45% (3.94-5.38%); LSIL-2.83% (2.49-3.57%); HSIL-0.38% (0.31-0.62%), non-diagnostic-0.80% (0.54-1.03%); SCC-0.024% (0.016-0.051%); and AGC-0.25% (0.22-0.26%). Quality metrics were consistent with global reference values, with a total abnormal sample rate of 7.81% (7.7-9.67%), ASC/SIL ratio of 1.36 (1.18-1.66), and ASC-US/LSIL ratio of 1.47 (1.28-1.79). HPV testing expanded at a disproportionately higher rate than Pap test utilization, surging 27.8-fold over the wartime period. HPV positivity declined significantly from 21.07% in 2021 to 17.16% in 2025 ( Conclusion: Cytopathological reporting patterns remained within benchmark ranges under 4 years of armed conflict in Ukraine, with diagnostic performance of CSD LAB corresponding to international benchmarks. The rapid HPV testing expansion associated with an increased rate of testing among younger women, a decline in HPV positivity among the 30-65 cohort, and a rise in the HPV 18 proportional rate have direct implications for national vaccination and screening policies.
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.