The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. IARC Working Group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes.
Open accessAbstract
A collaborative study of screening programmes in eight countries was performed to estimate the risks of cervical cancer associated with different screening policies. Most of the data came from centrally organised screening programmes. Relative protection was higher in women who had had two or more negative results of screening tests than in those who had had only one negative smear, particularly in the first five years after the last test. There was little difference in the protection afforded by screening every year compared with every three years, but screening only once every five or 10 years offered appreciably less protection. The age of the women did not affect the sensitivity of the test or the sojourn time of the disease (the length of the detectable preclinical phase during which abnormal cytology could be picked up if a smear were taken); invasive cancer in women under 25 was rare. Centrally organised screening programmes were more effective than uncoordinated screening. Screening programmes should be aimed principally at women aged 35-60 but should start some years before the age of 35, and the intervals between screening should be three years or less.
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
Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. preventive services Task force recommendation statement
Moyer, V. A., & on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2012) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-12-201206190-00424 · Cited by 1,049
Eddy, D. M. (1990) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-113-3-214 · Cited by 837
Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening
Everett, T., Bryant, A., Griffin, M. F., Martin-Hirsch, P. P., Forbes, C. A., & Jepson, R. G. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002834.pub2 · Cited by 332
Denny, L., de Sanjose, S., Mutebi, M., Anderson, B. O., Kim, J., Jeronimo, J., Herrero, R., Yeates, K., Ginsburg, O., & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31795-0 · Cited by 246
Human Papillomavirus and the Long-term Risk of Cervical Neoplasia
van der Graaf, Y. (2002) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwf013 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1986-09-13
- Volume
- 293
- Issue
- 6548
- Pages
- 659-664
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W4241179867
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.21
- 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: Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. IARC Working Group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.293.6548.659
- The paper
- Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. IARC Working Group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes. (1986). BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.293.6548.659
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.