The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND Recent reports suggest that the reduction in mortality achieved by the UK national cervical screening programme is too small to justify its financial and psychosocial costs, except perhaps in a few high-risk women. METHODS We analysed trends in mortality before 1988, when the British national screening programme was launched, to estimate what future trends in cervical cancer mortality would have been without any screening. FINDINGS Cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales in women younger than 35 years rose three-fold from 1967 to 1987. By 1988, incidence in this age-range was among the highest in the world despite substantial opportunistic screening. Since national screening was started in 1988, this rising trend has been reversed. INTERPRETATION Cervical screening has prevented an epidemic that would have killed about one in 65 of all British women born since 1950 and culminated in about 6000 deaths per year in this country. However, these estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty, particularly in relation to the effects of oral contraceptives and changes in sexual behaviour. 80% or more of these deaths (up to 5000 deaths per year) are likely to be prevented by screening, which means that about 100000 (one in 80) of the 8 million British women born between 1951 and 1970 will be saved from premature death by the cervical screening programme at a cost per life saved of about pound 36000. The birth cohort trends also provide strong evidence that the death rate throughout life is substantially lower in women who were first screened when they were younger.
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
Cited by
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
McCredie, M. R., Sharples, K. J., Paul, C., Baranyai, J., Medley, G., Jones, R. W., & Skegg, D. C. (2008) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(08)70103-7 · Cited by 1,123
Molecular biology of human papillomavirus infection and cervical cancer
Doorbar, J. (2006) · Clinical Science · doi:10.1042/cs20050369 · Cited by 1,072
Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis
Forouzanfar, M. H., Foreman, K. J., Delossantos, A. M., Lozano, R., Lopez, A. D., Murray, C. J. L., & Naghavi, M. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61351-2 · Cited by 1,009
Carcinogenic human papillomavirus infection
Schiffman, M., Doorbar, J., Wentzensen, N., de Sanjosé, S., Fakhry, C., Monk, B. J., Stanley, M. A., & Franceschi, S. (2016) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.86 · Cited by 999
Metadata
- Authors
- Peto, J., Gilham, C., Fletcher, O., & Matthews, F. E.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-07
- Volume
- 364
- Issue
- 9430
- Pages
- 249-256
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2138556740
- Cited by
- 808
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16674-9
- The paper
- Peto, J., Gilham, C., Fletcher, O., & Matthews, F. E. (2004). The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16674-9
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.