Literature DB >> 12051215

How can we develop a cost-effective quality cervical screening programme?

Sue Wilson1, Helen Lester.   

Abstract

This article discusses the evidence base underpinning the United Kingdom cervical screening programme and proposes that there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that too many women are screened too frequently. The financial savings generated from increasing the screening interval to five years and restricting routine screening to women aged 25 to 50 years may, we suggest, be better spent on improving the quality of the cervical screening programme. Re-awakening this debate must not however deflect energy and effort from recruiting women who have never been screened or further developing quality control systems. Any debate must also fully engage women of all ages as the key stakeholders in the decision-making process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12051215      PMCID: PMC1314326     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  45 in total

1.  Efficacy of cervical-smear collection devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  P Martin-Hirsch; R Lilford; G Jarvis; H C Kitchener
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-11-20       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 2.  Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review.

Authors:  K Nanda; D C McCrory; E R Myers; L A Bastian; V Hasselblad; J D Hickey; D B Matchar
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-05-16       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 3.  Clinical practice. Current approaches to cervical-cancer screening.

Authors:  G F Sawaya; A D Brown; A E Washington; A M Garber
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-05-24       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Natural history of cervical human papillomavirus infection in young women: a longitudinal cohort study.

Authors:  C B Woodman; S Collins; H Winter; A Bailey; J Ellis; P Prior; M Yates; T P Rollason; L S Young
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-06-09       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  A follow-up study of patients with cervical dysplasia.

Authors:  R M Richart; B A Barron
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1969-10-01       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Assessing the effectiveness of community screening programs.

Authors:  D Cadman; L Chambers; W Feldman; D Sackett
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1984 Mar 23-30       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  The positive predictive value of cervical smears in previously screened postmenopausal women: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS).

Authors:  G F Sawaya; D Grady; K Kerlikowske; J L Valleur; V M Barnabei; K Bass; T E Snyder; J H Pickar; S K Agarwal; J Mandelblatt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-12-19       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Achievable laboratory standards; a review of cytology of 99 women with cervical cancer.

Authors:  C Womack; A Y Warren
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.073

9.  Screening strategies for cervical cancer and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

Authors:  R M Richart; B A Barron
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1981-03-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Ages and frequencies for cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  E G Knox
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1976-10       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  2 in total

1.  Cluster-randomised trial of risk communication to enhance informed uptake of cervical screening.

Authors:  Rachel M Holloway; Clare Wilkinson; Tim J Peters; Ian Russell; David Cohen; Janine Hale; Cerilan Rogers; Helen Lewis
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Prevalence of the use of cancer related self-tests by members of the public: a community survey.

Authors:  Sue Wilson; Sheila Greenfield; Helen M Pattison; Angela Ryan; Richard J McManus; David Fitzmaurice; John Marriott; Cyril Chapman; Sue Clifford
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2006-08-25       Impact factor: 4.430

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.