Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15266332›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2004

The predicted effect of changes in cervical screening practice in the UK: results from a modelling study.

K Canfell, R Barnabas, J Patnick, V Beral

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02329171 (TOPical Imiquimod Treatment of High-grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasm), which is not on this map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02329171 phase3terminatednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

TOPical Imiquimod Treatment of High-grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasm: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorMaastricht University Medical CenterRan2014 to 2016Enrolled9ConditionsCervical Intraepithelial NeoplasiaArmsImiquimod, LLETZ
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

K CanfellCancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Gibson Building, Radcliffe Infirmary, OX2 6HE, UK.
R Barnabas
J Patnick
V Beral
University of Oxford · GBCancer Research UK · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2003, the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP) announced that its screening interval would be reduced to 3 years in women aged 25-49 and fixed at 5 years in those aged 50-64, and that women under 25 years will no longer be invited for screening. In order to assess these and possible further changes to cervical screening practice in the UK, we constructed a mathematical model of cervical HPV infection, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive cervical cancer, and of UK age-specific screening coverage rates, screening intervals and treatment efficacy. The predicted cumulative lifetime incidence of invasive cervical cancer in the UK is 1.70% in the absence of screening and 0.77% with pre-2003 screening practice. A reduction in lifetime incidence to 0.63% is predicted following the implementation of the 2003 NHSCSP recommendations, which represents a 63% reduction compared to incidence rates in the UK population if it were unscreened. The model suggests that, after the implementation of the 2003 recommendations, increasing the sensitivity of the screening test regime from its current average value of 56 to 90% would further reduce the cumulative lifetime incidence of invasive cervical cancer to 0.46%. Alternatively, extending screening to women aged 65-79 years would further reduce the lifetime incidence to 0.56%. Screening women aged 20-25 years would have minimal impact, with the cumulative lifetime incidence decreasing from 0.63 to 0.61%. In conclusion, the study supports the 2003 recommendations for changes to cervical screening intervals.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalNational Health ProgramsPractice Guidelines as TopicAdultAge FactorsFemaleHumansIncidenceMarkov ChainsMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessSensitivity and SpecificityUnited KingdomUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID15266332
PMCPMC2409838
OpenAlexW2018413784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.