Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18594534›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2008

Do women >or=50 years of age need as much screening as women <50 years after they have had negative screening results?

P Armaroli, F Gallo, A Bellomi, S Ciatto, D Consonni, D Davi, P Giorgi-Rossi, A Iossa, E Mancini, C Naldoni and 7 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

17 authors.

P ArmaroliSCDO Epidemiologia dei Tumori, Centro Prevenzione Oncologica Regione Piemonte and Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria S. Giovanni Battista di Torino, V. San Francesco da Paola 31, Torino 10123, Italy.
F Gallo
A Bellomi
S Ciatto
D Consonni
D Davi
P Giorgi-Rossi
A Iossa
E Mancini
C Naldoni
E Polla
G Ronco
M Serafini
V Vergini
L Zanier
M Zappa
N Segnan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To assess the adequacy of a routine screening to identify cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse (CIN2+) in women over 50 years of age, a retrospective cohort was set in six Italian organised population-based screening programmes. In all, 287 330 women (1 714 550 person-years of observation, 1110 cases) screened at age 25-64, with at least two cytological screening tests, the first negative, were followed from their first negative smear until a biopsy proven CIN2+ lesion or their last negative smear. For women aged 25-49 and 50-64 years, crude and age-standardised detection rate (DR), cumulative risk (CR), adjusted hazard risk for number of previous negative screens, probability of false-positive CIN2+ after two or more smear tests were calculated. Detection rate is significantly lower over 50 years of age. Multivariable analysis shows a significant protective effect from four screening episodes (DR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.51-0.97); the effect of age >or=50 is 0.29 (95% CI: 0.24-0.35). The CR of CIN2+ is at least eightfold higher in women <50 (CR=2.06, 95% CI: 1.88-2.23) after one previous negative test than in women >or=50 years with four screens (CR=0.23, 95% CI: 0.00-0.46). Over 50 years of age, after four tests at least three false-positive cases are diagnosed for every true positive. Benefits arising from cytological screening is uncertain in well-screened older women.

Indexed as

AdultAge FactorsCohort StudiesFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansItalyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective StudiesUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal Smears

Identifiers

PMID18594534
PMCPMC2480977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.