The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
2001 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women With Cervical Cytological Abnormalities
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities and cervical cancer precursors. PARTICIPANTS: A panel of 121 experts in the diagnosis and management of cervical cancer precursors, including representatives from 29 professional organizations, federal agencies, and national and international health organizations, were invited to participate in a consensus conference sponsored by the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP). EVIDENCE AND CONSENSUS PROCESS: Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities were developed through a multistep process. Starting 6 months before the conference, working groups developed draft management guidelines based on formal literature reviews of English-language articles published in 1988-2001, as well as input from the professional community at large, obtained using interactive Internet-based bulletin boards. On September 6-8, 2001, the ASCCP Consensus Conference was held in Bethesda, Md. Guidelines with supporting evidence were presented and underwent discussion, revision, and voting. CONCLUSIONS: Management of women with atypical squamous cells (ASC) depends on whether the Papanicolaou test is subcategorized as of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or as cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) (ASC-H). Women with ASC-US should be managed using a program of 2 repeat cytology tests, immediate colposcopy, or DNA testing for high-risk types of human papillomavirus (HPV). Testing for HPV DNA is the preferred approach when liquid-based cytology is used for screening. In most instances, women with ASC-H, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, HSIL, and atypical glandular cells should be referred for immediate colposcopic evaluation.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The 2001 Bethesda System<SUBTITLE>Terminology for Reporting Results of Cervical Cytology</SUBTITLE>
Solomon, D. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.16.2114 · Cited by 3,104
Cited by
The 2001 Bethesda System<SUBTITLE>Terminology for Reporting Results of Cervical Cytology</SUBTITLE>
Solomon, D. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.16.2114 · Cited by 3,104
Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer
Burd, E. M. (2003) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.16.1.1-17.2003 · Cited by 2,420
Aberg, J. A., Kaplan, J. E., Libman, H., Emmanuel, P., Anderson, J. R., Stone, V. E., Oleske, J. M., Currier, J. S., & Gallant, J. E. (2009) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/605292 · Cited by 837
Arbyn, M., Kyrgiou, M., Simoens, C., Raifu, A. O., Koliopoulos, G., Martin-Hirsch, P., Prendiville, W., & Paraskevaidis, E. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a1284 · Cited by 694
Clifford, G. M., Rana, R. K., Franceschi, S., Smith, J. S., Gough, G., & Pimenta, J. M. (2005) · Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-04-0812 · Cited by 533
Metadata
- Authors
- Wright, Jr.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2002-04-24
- Volume
- 287
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 2120
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2121189112
- Cited by
- 1,215
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 101.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women With Cervical Cytological Abnormalities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.287.16.2120
- The paper
- Wright, Jr. (2002). 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women With Cervical Cytological Abnormalities. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.16.2120
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.