ReviewThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2002
How can we develop a cost-effective quality cervical screening programme?
Review in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cluster-randomised trial of risk communication to enhance informed uptake of cervical screening.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003Trial
- Prevalence of the use of cancer related self-tests by members of the public: a community survey.BMC cancer · 2006Article
- [Prevention of cervical cancer].Atencion primaria · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article discusses the evidence base underpinning the United Kingdom cervical screening programme and proposes that there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that too many women are screened too frequently. The financial savings generated from increasing the screening interval to five years and restricting routine screening to women aged 25 to 50 years may, we suggest, be better spent on improving the quality of the cervical screening programme. Re-awakening this debate must not however deflect energy and effort from recruiting women who have never been screened or further developing quality control systems. Any debate must also fully engage women of all ages as the key stakeholders in the decision-making process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12051215PMC1314326What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.