The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of conventional cytology with liquid based cytology for primary screening of cervical cancer. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Nine screening programmes in Italy. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 25-60 attending for a new screening round: 22 466 were assigned to the conventional arm and 22 708 were assigned to the experimental arm. INTERVENTIONS: Conventional cytology compared with liquid based cytology and testing for human papillomavirus. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Relative sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or more at blindly reviewed histology, with atypical cells of undetermined significance or more severe cytology considered a positive result. RESULTS: In an intention to screen analysis liquid based cytology showed no significant increase in sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or more (relative sensitivity 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.56) whereas the positive predictive value was reduced (relative positive predictive value v conventional cytology 0.58, 0.44 to 0.77). Liquid based cytology detected more lesions of grade 1 or more (relative sensitivity 1.68, 1.40 to 2.02), with a larger increase among women aged 25-34 (P for heterogeneity 0.0006), but did not detect more lesions of grade 3 or more (relative sensitivity 0.84, 0.56 to 1.25). Results were similar when only low grade intraepithelial lesions or more severe cytology were considered a positive result. No evidence was found of heterogeneity between centres or of improvement with increasing time from start of the study. The relative frequency of women with at least one unsatisfactory result was lower with liquid based cytology (0.62, 0.56 to 0.69). CONCLUSION: Liquid based cytology showed no statistically significant difference in sensitivity to conventional cytology for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or more. More positive results were found, however, leading to a lower positive predictive value. A large reduction in unsatisfactory smears was evident. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81678807 [controlled-trials.com].
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
Arbyn, M., Anttila, A., Jordan, J., Ronco, G., Schenck, U., Segnan, N., Wiener, H., Herbert, A., & von Karsa, L. (2010) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdp471 · Cited by 760
Self-citationThe IARC Perspective on Cervical Cancer Screening
Bouvard, V., Wentzensen, N., Mackie, A., Berkhof, J., Brotherton, J., Giorgi-Rossi, P., Kupets, R., Smith, R., Arrossi, S., Bendahhou, K., et al. (2021) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsr2030640 · Cited by 357
Liang, L. A., Einzmann, T., Franzen, A., Schwarzer, K., Schauberger, G., Schriefer, D., Radde, K., Zeissig, S. R., Ikenberg, H., Meijer, C. J. L. M., et al. (2021) · Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-20-1003 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Ronco, G., Cuzick, J., Pierotti, P., Cariaggi, M. P., Palma, P. D., Naldoni, C., Ghiringhello, B., Giorgi-Rossi, P., Minucci, D., Parisio, F., Pojer, A., Schiboni, M. L., Sintoni, C., Zorzi, M., Segnan, N., & Confortini, M.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2007-05-21
- Volume
- 335
- Issue
- 7609
- Pages
- 28
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2108357099
- Cited by
- 279
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.01
- 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: Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.39196.740995.be
- The paper
- Ronco, G., Cuzick, J., Pierotti, P., Cariaggi, M. P., Palma, P. D., Naldoni, C., Ghiringhello, B., Giorgi-Rossi, P., Minucci, D., Parisio, F., Pojer, A., Schiboni, M. L., Sintoni, C., Zorzi, M., Segnan, N., & Confortini, M. (2007). Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39196.740995.be
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.