Literature DB >> 17651792

Process of care failures in invasive cervical cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Andrea R Spence1, Patricia Goggin, Eduardo L Franco.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: As invasive cervical cancer is preventable when screening and treatment of pre-invasive lesions are timely and appropriate, several past studies attempted to enumerate the quality of preventive care invasive cervical cancer subjects received before diagnosis. Objectives of the present study were to review and to summarize the findings of these studies in a meta-analysis.
METHOD: Data from 42 studies were used to estimate DerSimonian and Laird random effects models for the various failures in care along the cancer care continuum. Analyses were also conducted within strata characterized by variables deemed to account for heterogeneity in meta-regression analyses.
RESULTS: Poor Pap screening frequency was the primary factor attributable to development of invasive cervical cancer. On average, 53.8% (95% confidence interval: 43.6-66.3) of invasive cervical cancer subjects had inadequate screening histories and 41.5% (95% confidence interval: 35.4-48.7) were never screened. There was significant temporal improvement in the proportion of women screened at least once over a lifetime but not in the proportion with overall deficient histories. An estimated 29.3% (95% confidence interval: 21.2-40.4) of failures to prevent invasive cervical cancer can be attributed to false-negative Pap smears and 11.9% (95% confidence interval: 9.0-15.6) to poor follow-up of abnormal results.
CONCLUSION: Appropriate assessment of the effect of combined failures in the process of care must be done in comprehensive audit studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17651792     DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.06.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  84 in total

1.  Determinants of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Follow-Up And Invasive Cervical Cancer Among Uninsured and Underinsured Women in New Jersey.

Authors:  Jennifer Tsui; Adana A Llanos; Michelle Doose; David Rotter; Antoinette Stroup
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2019

2.  Long-term follow-up results of simultaneous integrated or late course accelerated boost with external beam radiotherapy to vaginal cuff for high risk cervical cancer patients after radical hysterectomy.

Authors:  Xin Wang; Yaqin Zhao; Yali Shen; Pei Shu; Zhiping Li; Sen Bai; Feng Xu
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 4.430

3.  Do you approve of spending $300 million on HPV vaccination?: no.

Authors:  Abby Lippman; Madeline Boscoe; Carol Scurfield
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Do you approve of spending $300 million on HPV vaccination?: yes.

Authors:  Marc Steben
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  A qualitative study of provider perspectives of structural barriers to cervical cancer screening among first nations women.

Authors:  Marion Maar; Ann Burchell; Julian Little; Gina Ogilvie; Alberto Severini; Jinghao Mary Yang; Ingeborg Zehbe
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2013 Sep-Oct

Review 6.  Human Papillomavirus Laboratory Testing: the Changing Paradigm.

Authors:  Eileen M Burd
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 26.132

7.  Gardasil® - The New HPV Vaccine: The Right Product, the Right Time? A Commentary.

Authors:  Joel Lexchin; Neil Arya; Sonal Singh
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2010-05

8.  Screening histories and contact with physicians as determinants of cervical cancer risk in Montreal, Quebec.

Authors:  A R Spence; A Alobaid; P Drouin; P Goggin; L Gilbert; D Provencher; P Tousignant; J A Hanley; E L Franco
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 3.677

9.  Filling a gap in cervical cancer screening programmes.

Authors:  Nicolas Wentzensen; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 41.316

10.  Optimal interval for routine cytologic screening in the United States.

Authors:  Jane J Kim; Monisha Sharma; Jesse Ortendahl
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-02-11       Impact factor: 21.873

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.