CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,104Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchClinical practice guidelines implementationWomen's cancer prevention and management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The 2001 Bethesda System<SUBTITLE>Terminology for Reporting Results of Cervical Cytology</SUBTITLE>

Solomon, Diane·2002·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.287.16.2114
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives The Bethesda 2001 Workshop was convened to evaluate and update the 1991 Bethesda System terminology for reporting the results of cervical cytology. A primary objective was to develop a new approach to broaden participation in the consensus process. Participants Forum groups composed of 6 to 10 individuals were responsible for developing recommendations for discussion at the workshop. Each forum group included at least 1 cytopathologist, cytotechnologist, clinician, and international representative to ensure a broad range of views and interests. More than 400 cytopathologists, cytotechnologists, histopathologists, family practitioners, gynecologists, public health physicians, epidemiologists, patient advocates, and attorneys participated in the workshop, which was convened by the National Cancer Institute and cosponsored by 44 professional societies. More than 20 countries were represented. Evidence Literature review, expert opinion, and input from an Internet bulletin board were all considered in developing recommendations. The strength of evidence of the scientific data was considered of paramount importance. Consensus process Bethesda 2001 was a year-long iterative review process. An Internet bulletin board was used for discussion of issues and drafts of recommendations. More than 1000 comments were posted to the bulletin board over the course of 6 months. The Bethesda Workshop, held April 30-May 2, 2001, was open to the public. Postworkshop recommendations were…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.287.16.2114

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 3,104

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Solomon, D.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Solomon, Diane
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2002-04-24
Volume
287
Issue
16
Pages
2114
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.287.16.2114
OpenAlex
W2133765716
Cited by
3,104
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 92 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 109 · 2019: 121 · 2018: 139 · 2017: 137 · 2016: 161 · 2015: 189 · 2014: 177 · 2013: 217 · 2012: 203
FWCI
92.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
Keywords
Bethesda system, cervical cytology, cervical cancer screening, cervical neoplasia, consensus development, international cooperation
MeSH terms
Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Laboratories, Terminology as Topic, Quality Control, Vaginal Smears

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