Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27632376›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2016

Impact of cervical screening on cervical cancer mortality: estimation using stage-specific results from a nested case-control study.

Rebecca Landy, Francesca Pesola, Alejandra Castañón, Peter Sasieni

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 192 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
192citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
21.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

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

192 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 374 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Comparison of Cervical Screening at 6- and 12-Weeks Postnatal: A Paired-Sample Feasibility Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

132 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 1 institution in 1 country.

Rebecca LandyCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Bart's & The London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Francesca PesolaCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Bart's & The London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Alejandra CastañónCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Bart's & The London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Peter SasieniCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Bart's & The London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Queen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16892
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is well established that screening can prevent cervical cancer, but the magnitude of the impact of regular screening on cervical cancer mortality is unknown.

methodsPopulation-based case-control study using prospectively recorded cervical screening data, England 1988-2013. Case women had cervical cancer diagnosed during April 2007-March 2013 aged 25-79 years (N=11 619). Two cancer-free controls were individually age matched to each case. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of developing stage-specific cancer for women regularly screened or irregularly screened compared with women not screened in the preceding 15 years. Mortality was estimated from excess deaths within 5 years of diagnosis using stage-specific 5-year relative survival from England with adjustment for age within stage based on SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results, USA) data.

resultsIn women aged 35-64 years, regular screening is associated with a 67% (95% confidence interval (CI): 62-73%) reduction in stage 1A cancer and a 95% (95% CI: 94-97%) reduction in stage 3 or worse cervical cancer: the estimated OR comparing regular (⩽5.5yearly) screening to no (or minimal) screening are 0.18 (95% CI: 0.16-0.19) for cancer incidence and 0.08 (95% CI: 0.07-0.09) for mortality. It is estimated that in England screening currently prevents 70% (95% CI: 66-73%) of cervical cancer deaths (all ages); however, if everyone attended screening regularly, 83% (95% CI: 82-84%) could be prevented.

conclusionsThe association between cervical cancer screening and incidence is stronger in more advanced stage cancers, and screening is more effective at preventing death from cancer than preventing cancer itself.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningAdultAgedCase-Control StudiesEarly Detection of CancerEnglandFemaleHumansIncidenceMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPapanicolaou TestUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal Smears

Identifiers

PMID27632376
PMCPMC5117785
OpenAlexW2519324524

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.