Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cervical cancer prevention: New tools and old barriers

Open access
Scarinci, Isabel C., Garcia, Francisco A.R., Kobetz, Erin, Partridge, Edward E., Brandt, Heather M., Bell, Maria C., Dignan, Mark, Ma, Grace X., Daye, Jane L., Castle, Philip E.·2010·Cancer

Abstract

Cervical cancer is the second most common female tumor worldwide, and its incidence is disproportionately high (>80%) in the developing world. In the United States, in which Papanicolaou (Pap) tests have reduced the annual incidence to approximately 11,000 cervical cancers, >60% of cases are reported to occur in medically underserved populations as part of a complex of diseases linked to poverty, race/ethnicity, and/or health disparities. Because carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) infections cause virtually all cervical cancer, 2 new approaches for cervical cancer prevention have emerged: 1) HPV vaccination to prevent infections in younger women (aged ≤18 years) and 2) carcinogenic HPV detection in older women (aged ≥30 years). Together, HPV vaccination and testing, if used in an age‐appropriate manner, have the potential to transform cervical cancer prevention, particularly among underserved populations. Nevertheless, significant barriers of access, acceptability, and adoption to any cervical cancer prevention strategy remain. Without understanding and addressing these obstacles, these promising new tools for cervical cancer prevention may be futile. In the current study, the delivery of cervical cancer prevention strategies to these US populations that experience a high cervical cancer burden (African‐American women in South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi; Haitian immigrant women in Miami; Hispanic women in the US‐Mexico Border; Sioux/Native American women in the Northern Plains; white women in the Appalachia; and Vietnamese‐American women in Pennsylvania and New Jersey) is reviewed. The goal was to inform future research and outreach efforts to reduce the burden of cervical cancer in underserved populations. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.25065

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 54 references

Cited by

See all 293

Metadata

Authors
Scarinci, I. C., Garcia, F. A. R., Kobetz, E., Partridge, E. E., Brandt, H. M., Bell, M. C., Dignan, M., Ma, G. X., Daye, J. L., & Castle, P. E.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-03-22
Volume
116
Issue
11
Pages
2531-2542
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W2616221053
Cited by
293
References
54
FWCI
17.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cervical cancer prevention: New tools and old barriers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.25065
The paper
Scarinci, I. C., Garcia, F. A. R., Kobetz, E., Partridge, E. E., Brandt, H. M., Bell, M. C., Dignan, M., Ma, G. X., Daye, J. L., & Castle, P. E. (2010). Cervical cancer prevention: New tools and old barriers. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25065

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.