Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 292

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer

Open access
The National Co-ordinating Network for Cervical Screening Working Group, Sasieni, PD, Cuzick, J, Lynch-Farmery, E·1996·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

The screening histories of all 348 women with invasive cervical cancer diagnosed in 1992 in 24 self-selected district health authorities and health boards in England, Wales and Scotland were compared with those of 677 age- and residency-matched controls. The controls were randomly selected from the family health services authority (FHSA) register. Screening histories, comprising the dates and results of all smears taken before the date of diagnosis of the patient's cancer, were determined from the FHSA computer and laboratory records. We estimate that the number of cases of cervical cancer in participating districts in 1992 would have been 57% (95% confidence interval 28-86%) greater if there had been no previous screening. In women under the age of 70 it would have been approximately 75% (31-115%) greater. Extrapolation of the results from this pilot suggests that screening prevented between 1100 and 3900 cases of invasive cervical cancer in the UK in 1992. Women with stage 1B cancer or worse were more likely to have no record of previous screening than controls: 47% of these women under the age of 70 had been adequately screened according to current (5 yearly screening) guidelines, compared with 75% of matched controls. Thirteen per cent of all patients under age 70 had screening histories indicative of inadequate follow-up of smears requiring colposcopy. The proportion of microinvasive cases with screening predating diagnosis was similar to the proportion of controls. There was a strong correlation between stage and age: 56% of cancers in women under 35 were microinvasive compared with just 9% in women 65 years or over. The 'relative protection' following a negative smear was greatest in the first 12 months and fell off towards the end of the fifth year. These data suggest that full adherence to current guidelines could perhaps have prevented another 1250 cases, but additional steps would have been required to prevent some of the 2300 remaining cases in women under the age of 70.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/bjc.1996.196

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 292

Metadata

Authors
The National Co-ordinating Network for Cervical Screening Working Group, Sasieni, P., Cuzick, J., & Lynch-Farmery, E.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
1996-04
Volume
73
Issue
8
Pages
1001-1005
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W1825788561
Cited by
292
References
0
FWCI
8.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.1996.196
The paper
The National Co-ordinating Network for Cervical Screening Working Group, Sasieni, P., Cuzick, J., & Lynch-Farmery, E. (1996). Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1996.196

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.