Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 279

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 access
Ronco, Guglielmo, Cuzick, Jack, Pierotti, Paola, Cariaggi, Maria Paola, Palma, Paolo Dalla, Naldoni, Carlo, Ghiringhello, Bruno, Giorgi-Rossi, Paolo, Minucci, Daria, Parisio, Franca, Pojer, Ada, Schiboni, Maria Luisa, Sintoni, Catia, Zorzi, Manuel, Segnan, Nereo, Confortini, Massimo·2007·BMJ

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.39196.740995.be

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.

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 279

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.