Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 226

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk Factors for Cervical Cancer in Thailand: a Case-Control Study

Chichareon, Saibua, Herrero, Rolando, Muñoz, Nubia, Bosch, F. Xavier, Jacobs, Marcel V., Deacon, Judith, Santamaria, Mercedes, Chongsuvivatwong, Virasakdi, Meijer, Chris J. L. M., Walboomers, Jan M. M.·1998·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Human papillomaviruses (HPV) types 16 and 18 are clearly involved in the etiology of cervical cancer, but the evidence for the carcinogenicity of other HPV types is limited. Cofactors involved in the progression from infection with HPV to high-grade precursors and cancer have not been clearly defined by the results of previous studies. METHODS: We conducted a hospital-based, case-control study of invasive cervical cancer to investigate risk in relation to HPV infection and its epidemiologic cofactors in Hat-Yai, Thailand. A total of 338 patients with squamous cell carcinoma, 39 patients with adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma, and 261 control subjects were included in the study and were interviewed to obtain information with regard to cervical cancer risk factors. HPV DNA presence in cervical exfoliated cells or frozen biopsy specimens was determined by a polymerase chain reaction assay. RESULTS: HPV DNA was detected in 95% of patients with squamous cell carcinoma, 90% of those with adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma, and 16% of control subjects. For patients with squamous cell carcinoma, the most common types of HPV found were type 16 (60% of the positives), type 18 (18%), type 58 (3%), type 52 (3%), and type 31 (2%). For patients with adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma, the most common HPV types found were type 18 (60% of the positives), type 16 (37%), and type 45 (3%). The risk factors that remained associated with risk of both histologic types after adjustment for HPV and their mutual confounding effects were limited education, increasing number of sexual partners, history of venereal diseases, and interval since last Pap smear (i.e., cytologic) test. Among patients with squamous cell carcinoma, some association with smoking was also observed. CONCLUSION: New preventive strategies for cervical cancer will require the consideration of multiple HPV types.

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 · 10.1093/jnci/90.1.50

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 226

Metadata

Authors
Chichareon, S., Herrero, R., Muñoz, N., Bosch, F. X., Jacobs, M. V., Deacon, J., Santamaria, M., Chongsuvivatwong, V., Meijer, C. J. L. M., & Walboomers, J. M. M.
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
1998-01-07
Volume
90
Issue
1
Pages
50-57
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2094666432
Cited by
226
References
1
FWCI
11.67
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: Risk Factors for Cervical Cancer in Thailand: a Case-Control Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/90.1.50
The paper
Chichareon, S., Herrero, R., Muñoz, N., Bosch, F. X., Jacobs, M. V., Deacon, J., Santamaria, M., Chongsuvivatwong, V., Meijer, C. J. L. M., & Walboomers, J. M. M. (1998). Risk Factors for Cervical Cancer in Thailand: a Case-Control Study. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/90.1.50

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.