ArticleJAMA network open2026
Cervical Cancer Screening Rates by Race and Ethnicity, Age, Language, and Census Region.
Article in JAMA network open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Longitudinal evidence of cervical cancer screening (CCS) trends before and after COVID-19 across demographic cohorts remains limited. Objective: To examine CCS rates by race and ethnicity, age, language, and census region among patients with at least 1 health care encounter in an electronic medical record (EMR) system from 2019 through 2024, and to evaluate longitudinal trends across these groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using an EMR database, this cross-sectional study evaluated CCS rates among female patients aged 21 to 64 years between 2019 and 2024, stratified by race and ethnicity, age, language, and census region. Exposures: Race and ethnicity, age, language, and census region. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to summarize annual CCS rates across demographic groups. The Cochran-Armitage test assessed linear trends over time. Results: Annual sample sizes ranged from approximately 9 to 16 million patients and increased steadily over time; analytic population sizes varied across subgroups. Most patients were non-Hispanic White, aged 30 to 49 years, English-speaking, and resided in either the South or Northeast. Non-Hispanic White patients had the highest annual CCS rates from 2019 to 2021 but experienced the smallest percentage increase, from 10.98% (95% CI, 10.96%-11.01%) to 13.85% (95% CI, 13.82%-13.87%), over the study period. Hispanic patients experienced the largest percentage increase in CCS rates, from 9.85% (95% CI, 9.80%-9.90%) to 15.51% (95% CI, 15.47%-15.55%). American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander patients had the lowest screening rates throughout the study period. Patients aged 30 to 49 years and non-English-speaking patients consistently had the highest CCS rates across all years. Patients in the Western and Southern census regions had lower CCS rates than those in other regions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of patients with at least 1 health care encounter in an EMR system, all CCS rates increased across all racial and ethnic groups from 2019 to 2024, with the greatest gains observed among Hispanic patients. However, persistent disparities remained, particularly among American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander patients and those in the Western and Southern regions. These findings suggest that although screening uptake has improved over time, substantial geographic and racial and ethnic disparities in CCS persist, highlighting important areas for future research and intervention efforts.
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.