Literature DB >> 3092971

Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. IARC Working Group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes.

.   

Abstract

A collaborative study of screening programmes in eight countries was performed to estimate the risks of cervical cancer associated with different screening policies. Most of the data came from centrally organised screening programmes. Relative protection was higher in women who had had two or more negative results of screening tests than in those who had had only one negative smear, particularly in the first five years after the last test. There was little difference in the protection afforded by screening every year compared with every three years, but screening only once every five or 10 years offered appreciably less protection. The age of the women did not affect the sensitivity of the test or the sojourn time of the disease (the length of the detectable preclinical phase during which abnormal cytology could be picked up if a smear were taken); invasive cancer in women under 25 was rare. Centrally organised screening programmes were more effective than uncoordinated screening. Screening programmes should be aimed principally at women aged 35-60 but should start some years before the age of 35, and the intervals between screening should be three years or less.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3092971      PMCID: PMC1341512          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.293.6548.659

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)        ISSN: 0267-0623


  8 in total

1.  Influence of population screening on morbidity and mortality of cancer of the uterine cervix in Maribo Amt.

Authors:  A Berget
Journal:  Dan Med Bull       Date:  1979-04

2.  Cervical cancer detection in British Columbia. A progress report.

Authors:  H K Fidler; D A Boyes; A J Worth
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw       Date:  1968-04

3.  Simplified models of screening for chronic disease: estimation procedures from mass screening programmes.

Authors:  N E Day; S D Walter
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  A cohort study of cervical cancer screening in British Columbia.

Authors:  D A Boyes; B Morrison; E G Knox; G J Draper; A B Miller
Journal:  Clin Invest Med       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 0.825

5.  [A case control study for the evaluation of the cytological detection of cancer of the cervix].

Authors:  L Raymond; M Obradovic; G Riotton
Journal:  Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 1.019

6.  A case-control study of cervical cancer screening in north east Scotland.

Authors:  J E Macgregor; S M Moss; D M Parkin; N E Day
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1985-05-25

7.  Papanicolaou smear screening and cervical cancer. What can you expect?

Authors:  B Stenkvist; R Bergström; G Eklund; C H Fox
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1984-09-21       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Screening for cancer of the uterine cervix in Iceland 1965--1978.

Authors:  G Johannesson; G Geirsson; N Day; H Tulinius
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 3.636

  8 in total
  63 in total

1.  Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice?

Authors:  A E Raffle
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Development of a breast and cervical cancer screening intervention for Vietnamese American women: a community-based participatory approach.

Authors:  Anh B Nguyen; Faye Z Belgrave; Barbara K Sholley
Journal:  Health Promot Pract       Date:  2010-06-08

3.  Outcomes of screening to prevent cancer: think of screening as insurance.

Authors:  Peter D Sasieni
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-07-05

4.  Too much of a good thing?

Authors:  Brenda E Sirovich
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.911

5.  Review of an Irish cervical smear service.

Authors:  J Dolan; E Ryan; M Thornhill; B Curran; M Leader
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 1.568

Review 6.  Quantitative approaches to the evaluation of screening programs.

Authors:  N E Day
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1989 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Increasing cervical cancer screening in the United States-Mexico border region.

Authors:  Beti Thompson; Hugo Vilchis; Crystal Moran; Wade Copeland; Sarah Holte; Catherine Duggan
Journal:  J Rural Health       Date:  2013-08-12       Impact factor: 4.333

Review 8.  Cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Dorothy J Wiley; Bradley J Monk; Emmanuel Masongsong; Kristina Morgan
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 5.075

9.  A theory-based approach to understanding follow-up of abnormal Pap tests.

Authors:  Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Heidi C Pearson
Journal:  J Health Psychol       Date:  2009-04

Review 10.  The association of obesity and cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nisa M Maruthur; Shari D Bolen; Frederick L Brancati; Jeanne M Clark
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2008-11-06       Impact factor: 5.002

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.