ArticleJournal of medical screening2021
Impact of changes to cervical screening guidelines on age and interval at which women are tested: Population-based study.
Article in Journal of medical screening, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between HPV vaccination and cervical screening policy changes and cervical cancer incidence and grade-3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence in England, 2006-2020: a population-based trends analysis.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Article
- Managing an extension of screening intervals: Avoiding boom and bust in health care workloads.International journal of cancer · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEnglish cervical screening programme guidelines changed between 2009 and 2012. We explore the impact on the age and intervals at which women receive a cytology test.
methodsEligible women were controls from a population-based case-control study in England. Tests taken between 1980 and 2017 were extracted from the call/recall database. Using the Kaplan-Meier estimator by birth cohort and age at (or time since) last test, we explore proportions tested since or prior to a given age, years since previous test, and interval following a negative test.
resultsScreening histories from 46,037 women were included. Proportion tested by age 26 has increased from 55% among birth cohorts 1978-1979 to 67% among those born 1990-1991, despite more recent cohorts only having received one invitation (instead of two) prior to age 26. The proportion of women tested at aged 28 with a test three years earlier increased by 20% (from 36% in 1997-2006 to 56% in 2012-2017) whereas the proportion tested at ages 23-27 without a prior test increased from 34% to 80%. The age at last test prior to exiting the programme has decreased: among those born 1928-1931 86% had a test aged 60-65, but only 71% of those born 1947-1951.
conclusionClear programme guidance alongside quality assurance has improved the cervical screening programme by standardising the age and intervals at which women are screened.
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.