The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of screening on the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer. DESIGN: Comparison of age specific incidence and mortality before and after the introduction of the national call and recall system in 1988. SETTING: England. SUBJECTS: Women aged over 19 years. RESULTS: From the mid-1960s, the number of smears taken rose continuously to 4.5 million at the end of the 1980s. Between 1988 and 1994, coverage of the target group doubled to around 85%. Registrations of in situ disease increased broadly in parallel with the numbers of smears taken. The overall incidence of invasive disease remained stable up to the end of the 1980s, although there were strong cohort effects; from 1990 incidence fell continuously and in 1995 was 35% lower than in the 1980s. The fall in overall mortality since 1950 accelerated at the end of the 1980s; there were strong cohort effects. Mortality in women under 55 was much lower in the 1990s than would have been expected. CONCLUSIONS: The national call and recall system and incentive payments to general practitioners increased coverage to around 85%. This resulted in falls in incidence of invasive disease in all regions of England and in all age groups from 30 to 74. The falls in mortality in older women were largely unrelated to screening, but without screening there might have been 800 more deaths from cervical cancer in women under 55 in 1997.
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
Cancer burden in the year 2000. The global picture
Parkin, D. M., Bray, F. I., & Devesa, S. S. (2001) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/s0959-8049(01)00267-2 · Cited by 2,169
Kyrgiou, M., Koliopoulos, G., Martin-Hirsch, P., Arbyn, M., Prendiville, W., & Paraskevaidis, E. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68181-6 · Cited by 1,120
Evidence-based clinical guidelines for immigrants and refugees
Pottie, K., Greenaway, C., Feightner, J., Welch, V., Swinkels, H., Rashid, M., Narasiah, L., Kirmayer, L. J., Ueffing, E., MacDonald, N. E., et al. (2011) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.090313 · Cited by 526
Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population
Koliopoulos, G., Nyaga, V. N., Santesso, N., Bryant, A., Martin-Hirsch, P. P., Mustafa, R. A., Schünemann, H., Paraskevaidis, E., & Arbyn, M. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008587.pub2 · Cited by 494
Myers, E. R., McCrory, D. C., Nanda, K., Bastian, L., & Matchar, D. B. (2000) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010166 · Cited by 470
Metadata
- Authors
- Quinn, M., Babb, P., Jones, J., & Allen, E.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1999-04-03
- Volume
- 318
- Issue
- 7188
- Pages
- 904-904
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2165074606
- Cited by
- 571
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.54
- 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: Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.318.7188.904
- The paper
- Quinn, M., Babb, P., Jones, J., & Allen, E. (1999). Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7188.904
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.