Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19417745›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2009

Risk of cervical abnormality after age 50 in women with previously negative smears.

R G Blanks, S M Moss, S Addou, D A Coleman, A J Swerdlow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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

5 authors.

R G BlanksCancer Screening Evaluation Unit, Sir Richard Doll Building, Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK. roger.blanks@icr.ac.uk
S M Moss
S Addou
D A Coleman
A J Swerdlow

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is discussion over the benefit of continuing cervical screening in women over the age of 50 with a history of negative cytology. We aimed to determine the risk of abnormal cytology in such women. Screening history data from 1985 to 2003 were obtained for a cohort of 2 million women from the NHS cervical screening programme from four Health Authorities in England. The 57,651 women in the cohort who reached age 40 between 1 January 1985 and 31 December 1990 and had at least one routine or opportunistic smear between ages 50 and 54 were included in the analysis. Exposure groups (negative cytology history, negative but including inadequate smears, and positive history) were defined on the basis of screening histories from ages 40 to 49. Sixty-four percent (134/206) (95% CI: 57-71%) of the moderate dyskaryosis or worse lesions at ages over 50 were detected from women in the negative smear history group. After allowance for time since last negative smear, the relative risk for the first primary smear over the age of 50 having moderate dyskaryosis or worse decreased from 0.60 (95% CI: 0.41-0.84) for two negative smear episodes to 0.25 (95% CI: 0.10-0.56) for four negative smear episodes, compared with the positive history group. If screening were discontinued for all women over 50 with a negative history, the majority of cytological abnormalities now being detected at these ages that lead directly to referral to colposcopy would be missed.

Indexed as

Vaginal SmearsAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRisk FactorsTime FactorsUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID19417745
PMCPMC2695690

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.