Literature DB >> 7769901

Detection rates for abnormal cervical smears: what are we screening for?

A E Raffle1, B Alden, E F Mackenzie.   

Abstract

We analysed rates of detection for smear abnormalities in 255,000 women served by the Bristol screening programme. The programme began in 1966 with the aim of eradicating the 30-40 deaths each year in Bristol from cervical cancer. Organisation has been good and population uptake has been high for the past 15 years. Records were computerised in 1977. During the 1988 to 1993 screening round, 225,974 women were tested. New smear abnormalities were found in 15,551, of whom nearly 6000 were referred for colposcopy. These numbers are excessively high in comparison with the incidence of the malignancy we are trying to prevent. The effect of screening on death rates in Bristol is too small to detect. Our conclusion is that despite good organisation of the service, much of our effort in Bristol is devoted to limiting the harm done to healthy women and to protecting our staff from litigation as cases of serious disease continue to occur. The real lesson from 30 years' cervical screening is that no matter how obvious the predicted benefit may seem for any screening test, introduction should never take place without adequate prior evaluation of both positive and negative effects in controlled trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7769901     DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)91036-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  20 in total

1.  Gaining informed consent for screening. Is difficult--but many misconceptions need to be undone.

Authors:  J Austoker
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-18

2.  Cervical cytology: are national guidelines adequate for women attending genitourinary medicine clinics?

Authors:  E Foley; V Harindra
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.519

3.  The screening history of women with cervical cancer in the Rotterdam area.

Authors:  F A Kreuger; H Beerman
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering.

Authors:  Ray Moynihan; Iona Heath; David Henry
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-04-13

5.  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

6.  Evidence-based clinical guidelines for immigrants and refugees.

Authors:  Kevin Pottie; Christina Greenaway; John Feightner; Vivian Welch; Helena Swinkels; Meb Rashid; Lavanya Narasiah; Laurence J Kirmayer; Erin Ueffing; Noni E MacDonald; Ghayda Hassan; Mary McNally; Kamran Khan; Ralf Buhrmann; Sheila Dunn; Arunmozhi Dominic; Anne E McCarthy; Anita J Gagnon; Cécile Rousseau; Peter Tugwell
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  Clinical governance.

Authors:  N W Goodman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998 Dec 19-26

Review 8.  There is no longer a place for underage cytology in genitourinary medicine clinics.

Authors:  C O'Mahony
Journal:  Genitourin Med       Date:  1996-12

9.  Prevalence of human papillomavirus in university young women.

Authors:  Maria T Montalvo; Ismelda Lobato; Hilda Villanueva; Celia Borquez; Daniela Navarrete; Juan Abarca; Gloria M Calaf
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2011-04-06       Impact factor: 2.967

10.  Randomised controlled trial of the effect of evidence based information on women's willingness to participate in cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  P Adab; T Marshall; A Rouse; B Randhawa; H Sangha; N Bhangoo
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.