ArticleInternational journal of cancer2025
Risk of high-grade cervical lesions in the second round of primary human papillomavirus testing in CervicalScreen Norway: A population-based cohort study.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health Care Policy Implementation Trial of Primary Human Papillomavirus-Based Cervical Screening in Denmark.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Preventable, Yet Unprevented: The Cervical Cancer Screening Landscape in Eastern Europe and Bulgaria.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Five-Year Risk of CIN3+ After CIN1 Biopsy in a Norwegian Screening Setting: Comparison of CIN1 Diagnosed in a Single Calendar Year and in Two Consecutive Calendar Years.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Risk of high-grade cervical lesions in the second round of primary human papillomavirus testing in CervicalScreen Norway: A population-based cohort study.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- High risk human papillomavirus versus cytological screening over two rounds in Finnish screening programme for cervical cancer: population based cohort study.BMJ medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As many countries are transitioning from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as the primary cervical cancer screening test, we evaluated the impact of cumulative HPV screening during the implementation of HPV screening in the Norwegian cervical cancer screening programme (CervicalScreen Norway). Data from the second HPV screening round was compared with data from the first round. The second-round analyses included only women who returned to routine screening 4-6 years following a negative HPV test in the first round. Associations between screening rounds and HPV positivity, cytology results, and follow-up recommendations were estimated by multinomial logistic regression, and relative risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) by Cox regression. There was a 42% lower risk of being HPV positive in the second screening round compared to the first (age-adjusted relative risk ratio (aRRR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.65), and a 70% lower risk of having high-grade cytology among HPV16 positive women (0.30, 0.12 to 0.78). There was also a 51% reduction in referrals for immediate colposcopy (0.49, 0.39 to 0.62). The overall risk of CIN3+ was 71% lower in the second round compared to the first (age-adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.29, 95%CI 0.21-0.40), and lower among HPV16 and other high-risk HPV positive women, but not among HPV18 positives. No cervical cancers were diagnosed in the second round (mean follow-up 2.4 years). Our findings indicate that HPV test results from previous screening rounds should be considered when designing optimal screening algorithms.
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.