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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Cites
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: IX. A Method for Grading Health Care Recommendations
Guyatt, G. H. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530220066035 · Cited by 846
Cited by
How Big is a Big Odds Ratio? Interpreting the Magnitudes of Odds Ratios in Epidemiological Studies
Chen, H., Cohen, P., & Chen, S. (2010) · Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · doi:10.1080/03610911003650383 · Cited by 1,952
Sex Differences in Insomnia: A Meta-Analysis
Zhang, B., & Wing, Y.-K. (2006) · Sleep · doi:10.1093/sleep/29.1.85 · Cited by 1,286
Drug induced QT prolongation and torsades de pointes
Yap, Y. G., & Camm, A. J. (2003) · Heart · doi:10.1136/heart.89.11.1363 · Cited by 958
Deeks, J. J. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1188 · Cited by 660
Self-citationCorticosteroid injections for shoulder pain
Buchbinder, R., Green, S., & Youd, J. M. (2003) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004016 · Cited by 579
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.