ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025
Lack of consensus in calculation of interval cancer rates for cervical cancer screening.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Lack of consensus in calculation of interval cancer rates for cervical cancer screening.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn 2018, nondisclosure of results of retrospective audits of cytology in interval cancers precipitated a crisis in the Irish national cervical screening programme. In response, an Expert Reference Group was convened which recommended a collaborative approach to the development of a new key performance indicator, the interval cancer rate. The Expert Reference Group also recommended that the Irish programme should collaborate with international colleagues to reach consensus on (i) the definition of an interval cervical cancer, (ii) the methodology to calculate the interval cancer rate, and (iii) benchmarking with other international programs. This study was undertaken to determine if a consensus regarding the definition of an interval cervical cancer and the calculation of an interval cancer rate exists. MATERIAL AND
methodsA web-based questionnaire was sent to 18 population-based cervical screening programs. Inclusion criteria involved (1) a national or regional population-based cervical screening prograe; (2) a country or region with a population ≥population of Ireland; (3) programs located in Europe, Australia, or Canada; (4) programs that had responded to a previously published international survey on the disclosure of retrospective cytology reviews in cervical cancer cases.
resultsThe response rate was nine out of 18. Of nine respondents, six had an agreed definition of interval cervical cancer, and four of these calculated an interval cancer rate. Three programs neither calculated interval cancer rates nor had any guidelines related to this. Of the six with an agreed definition, all respondents defined the numerator as invasive cancers in the screening age group, with four including microinvasive disease. Respondents included cancers diagnosed 3-5 years after the last screening test had been taken. Three respondents also included cancers diagnosed in women up to 3.5 years after they exited the screening program. Countries use different denominators, including (i) per women years, (ii) per number of screens, and (iii) per total cancers in screened population.
conclusionsThere is variation in the parameters used in interval cancer rate calculation. To allow benchmarking of cervical screening program performance, there is a need for consensus on a standardized method of interval cancer definition and interval cancer rate calculation.
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.