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.

When can odds ratios mislead?

Open access
Deeks, J., Bracken, M. B, Sinclair, J. C, Davies, H. T. O., Tavakoli, M., Crombie, I. K.·1998·BMJ

Abstract

Guidelines for cervical screening await scientific evaluationEditor-In a news item about cervical screening in England 1 Wise refers to a report by the National Audit Office. 2 The office is particularly critical of serious failings in the interpretation of cervical smears in a small number of laboratories.The laboratory at the Hospital of St Cross in Rugby is included among these laboratories.In fact, a massive rescreening exercise at the hospital did not find any serious errors of interpretation, and the original reports were considered to be substantially correct and within the accepted operating limits of the smear test.The National Audit Office and the public assume that any deviation from the national guidelines for reporting rates represents mistakes by the laboratory.It is therefore interesting that, although the results at the hospital in Rugby were outside these guidelines, no serious errors were identified.This raises the question of whether the guidelines are an appropriate measure of laboratory performance.The guidelines themselves have come under considerable criticism in the pathology literature because of the lack of scientific evidence on which they are based. 3 One of their own authors has been particularly outspoken on the subject. 4 Though some of these arguments may seem of academic interest, cytology departments are being forced to close or merge as a result of the guidelines, which await scientific evaluation.Many staff feel threatened by the prescriptive way in which the guidelines have been introduced and applied and by the lack of understanding by the lay public and media of the limitations of the smear test.The incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer in the United Kingdom have shown accelerated falls since the introduction of organised screening (J Patnick, NHS cervical screening programme information sheet, 21 Nov 1996).Of course there is room for improvement, but it is ironic that the publication of various reports designed to improve the service could lead to its eventual collapse through staff leaving the profession.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.317.7166.1155a

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

Cited by

See all 226

Metadata

Authors
Deeks, J., Bracken, M. B., Sinclair, J. C., Davies, H. T. O., Tavakoli, M., & Crombie, I. K.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1998-10-24
Volume
317
Issue
7166
Pages
1155-1155
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W150416639
Cited by
226
References
1
FWCI
4.38
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: When can odds ratios mislead? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.317.7166.1155a
The paper
Deeks, J., Bracken, M. B., Sinclair, J. C., Davies, H. T. O., Tavakoli, M., & Crombie, I. K. (1998). When can odds ratios mislead? BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7166.1155a

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.