ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cervical cancer screening participation, abnormal cytology prevalence and screening interval in Catalonia.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Geographic and demographic patterns of cervical cancer in Africa using GLOBOCAN 2022.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Changes in female cancer diagnostic billing rates over the COVID-19 period in the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Article
- Building the foundations for an organized population-based cervical cancer screening program with primary HPV self-sampling in Catalonia, Spain: findings from a pilot implementation study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Reduced bacillary load in elderly patients with active extrapulmonary and pulmonary tuberculosis in Peru: analysis of confirmatory culture after acid-fast bacilli test.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
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
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a national lockdown and the interruption of all cancer preventive services, including cervical cancer screening. We aimed to assess the COVID-19 pandemic impact on opportunistic screening participation, abnormal cytology (ASCUS+) prevalence and screening interval in 2020 and 2021 within the Public Health System of Catalonia, Spain. Methods: Individual data on cytology and HPV testing of women aged 25-65 from 2014 to 2021 were retrieved from the Information System for Primary Care Services (SISAP). Time-series regression models were used to estimate expected screening participation and abnormal cytology prevalence in 2020 and 2021. The impact was determined by comparing observed and expected values (ratios). Additionally, changes in screening interval trends between 2014 and 2021 were assessed by fitting a Piecewise linear regression model. Results: Cervical cancer screening participation decreased by 38.8% and 2.2% in 2020 and 2021, respectively, with the most significant impact on participation (-96.1%) occurring in April 2020. Among older women, participation was lower, and it took longer to recover. Abnormal cytology prevalence was 1.4 times higher than expected in 2020 and 2021, with variations by age (range=1.1-1.5). From June 2020 onwards, the screening interval trend significantly changed from an increase of 0.59 to 3.57 months per year, resulting in a median time of 48 months by December 2021. Conclusions: During the pandemic, fewer women have participated in cervical cancer screening, abnormal cytology prevalence has increased, and the screening interval is more prolonged than before. The potential cervical cancer lifetime risk implications highlight the need for organized HPV-based screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.