Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Inclusion of HPV testing in routine cervical cancer screening for women above 29 years in Germany: results for 8466 patients

Open access
Petry, K-U, Menton, S, Menton, M, van Loenen-Frosch, F, de Carvalho Gomes, H, Holz, B, Schopp, B, Garbrecht-Buettner, S, Davies, P, Boehmer, G, van den Akker, E, Iftner, T·2003·British Journal of Cancer
DOI 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600918
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In a prospective cohort study 8466 women attending routine cervical cancer screening were recruited. Colposcopy was performed on women with any degree of atypia on cytology and/or a positive high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV)-DNA test (HC2; Hybrid Capture 2((c))), and for a randomly selected sample of 3.4% women with negative findings on both. Quality control included reviews of cytology, histology, colposcopy images and retesting of samples with polymerase chain reaction. Test diagnostic performances were based on 7908 women who had complete baseline and follow-up results. Routine histology identified 86 women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+), which was confirmed by review histology in only 46 cases. Sensitivity of routine cytology for the detection of CIN2+ was 43.5%, with a specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.0, 11.4 and 99.7%, respectively. Sensitivity of the HC2 test for the detection of CIN2+ was 97.8%, with a specificity, PPV and NPV, of 95.3, 10.9 and 100%, respectively. No high-grade neoplasia was detected in the randomly selected control group. A negative HPV-test result, even in combination with a positive Papanicolaou (Pap) result, virtually excluded any risk of underlying high-grade disease, but this was not the case for a negative Pap result. These data show that HPV testing is of value for the detection or exclusion of prevalent CIN in a routine cervical cancer-screening setting and could be used for further risk classification of women for follow-up management.

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/sj.bjc.6600918

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 300

Metadata

Authors
Petry, K.-U., Menton, S., Menton, M., van Loenen-Frosch, F., de Carvalho Gomes, H., Holz, B., Schopp, B., Garbrecht-Buettner, S., Davies, P., Boehmer, G., van den Akker, E., & Iftner, T.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2003-05
Volume
88
Issue
10
Pages
1570-1577
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
DOI
10.1038/sj.bjc.6600918
OpenAlex
W2078962171
Cited by
300
References
19
FWCI
17.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Inclusion of HPV testing in routine cervical cancer screening for women above 29 years in Germany: results for 8466 patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600918
The paper
Petry, K.-U., Menton, S., Menton, M., van Loenen-Frosch, F., de Carvalho Gomes, H., Holz, B., Schopp, B., Garbrecht-Buettner, S., Davies, P., Boehmer, G., van den Akker, E., & Iftner, T. (2003). Inclusion of HPV testing in routine cervical cancer screening for women above 29 years in Germany: results for 8466 patients. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600918

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.