ArticleInternational journal of cancer2017
Harms of cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- HIV-positive women have higher risk of human papilloma virus infection, precancerous lesions, and cervical cancer.AIDS (London, England) · 2018Pooled it
- Trends in over- and under-screening for cervical cancer after EMR implementation in rural China.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Women's compliance with cervical cancer screening recommendations and associated barriers to participation: A cross-sectional analysis.PloS one · 2026Article
- Breast and Cervical Cancer Gaps in Displaced Lebanese Women in Syria.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening Overuse Among Women With and Without Disability in the U.S. From 2007 to 2016.AJPM focus · 2025Article
- Article
- Looking Back, Moving Forward: Challenges and Opportunities for Global Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control.Viruses · 2024Review
- Epidemiology of Cervical Cancer in the Caribbean.Cureus · 2023Review
- Performance of screening tools for cervical neoplasia among women in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of p16Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam) · 2023Article
- Shift in harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening in the era of HPV screening and vaccination: a modelling study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2022Article
- Harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening among non-attenders in Switzerland: The transition towards HPV-based screening.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Use of Cervical Cancer Screening among Patients of Primary Healthcare Services: Northeast Portugal.Portuguese journal of public health · 2022Article
- Cervical cancer prevention in Africa: A policy analysis.Journal of cancer policy · 2022Article
- Test Performance of Cervical Cytology Among Adults With vs Without Human Papillomavirus Vaccination.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Assessing Canadian women's preferences for cervical cancer screening: A brief report.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- The Catastrophic HPV/HIV Dual Viral Oncogenomics in Concert with Dysregulated Alternative Splicing in Cervical Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Overuse of Cervical Cancer Screening Tests Among Women With Average Risk in the United States From 2013 to 2014.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Defining benchmarks for tolerable risk thresholds in cancer screening: Impact of HPV vaccination on the future of cervical cancer screening.International journal of cancer · 2020Review
- Assessing Physician Adherence to Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management of Abnormal Screening Results.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We studied harms related to cervical cancer screening and management of screen-positive women in the United States (US) and the Netherlands. We utilized data from four US integrated health care systems (SEARCH), the US National Health Interview Survey, New Mexico state, the Netherlands national histopathology registry, and included studies on adverse health effects of cervical screening. We compared the number of Papanicolaou (Pap) smear tests, abnormal test results, punch biopsies, treatments, health problems (anxiety, pain, bleeding and discharge) and preterm births associated with excisional treatments. Results were age-standardized to the 2007 US population. Based on SEARCH, an estimated 36 million Pap tests were performed in 2007 for 91 million US women aged 21-65 years, leading to 2.3 million abnormal Pap tests, 1.5 million punch biopsies, 0.3 million treatments for precancerous lesions, 5 thousand preterm births and over 8 million health problems. Under the Netherlands screening practice, fewer Pap tests (58%), abnormal test results (64%), punch biopsies (75%), treatment procedures (40%), preterm births (60%) and health problems (63%) would have occurred. The SEARCH data did not differ much from other US data for 2007 or from more recent data up to 2013. Thus compared to the less intensive screening practice in the Netherlands, US practice of cervical cancer screening may have resulted in two- to threefold higher harms, while the effects on cervical cancer incidence and mortality are similar. The results are also of high relevance in making recommendations for HPV screening. Systematic collection of harms data is needed for monitoring and for better incorporation of harms in making screening recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.