Cochrane · systematic review · CD002834
Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening
Staley, H, Shiraz, A, Shreeve, N, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · Cochrane Library
Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan CancerAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
8
current version
GRADE rated
8
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 50%Low 2 · 25%Moderate 2 · 25%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Summary of findings
Population: women for cervical screening
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Invitation versus control: uptake of screening | RR 1.71 [1.49, 1.96] | 24 studies · 141391 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
GP invitation letter versus invitation letter from other authority sources: uptake of screening | RR 1.69 [0.75, 3.82] | 2 studies · 86 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Personal invitation versus invitation letter: uptake of screening | RR 1.32 [1.11, 1.56] | 5 studies · 27663 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Letter with fixed appointment versus letter with open invitation to make appointment: uptake of screening | RR 1.61 [1.48, 1.75] | 5 studies · 5742 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Summary of findings
Population: women for cervical screening
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Counselling versus control: uptake of screening | RR 1.23 [1.04, 1.45] | 2 studies · 393 participants | Very low |
Counselling versus other: uptake of screening | RR 1.13 [0.9, 1.41] | 1 study · 208 participants | Very low |
Summary of findings
Population: women for cervical screening
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Education versus control: uptake of screening | RR 1.35 [1.18, 1.54] | 13 studies · 63415 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Education versus other: uptake of screening | no estimate extracted | 2500 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |