ArticleJournal of medical screening2026
Quality indicators for cervical screening in Sweden.
Article in Journal of medical screening, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- How practically feasible is tailored screening for cervical cancer based on human papillomavirus vaccination status?: the role of data linkage and registers.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2026Review
- Nationwide audit of cervical cancer screening reveals unsatisfactory triage strategies and trends over time in incidence among cytology negative women.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Clinical relevance of partial HPV genotyping in cervical cancer screening.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectivesComparisons and optimization of screening programs are based on quality indicators (QI), but these are not well standardized and commonly not published. We report 13 QIs used for cervical screening in Sweden. These are decided on by the authorities and reported by the Swedish National Cervical Screening Registry that collects all data and calculates the QIs. The QIs as well as trends discovered and observations made during recent years, including effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, are summarized.SettingSweden. All units involved in cervical screening export all individual data to the screening registry.MethodsAll data on screening invitations, cervical samples with human papillomavirus (HPV), cytology and histopathology results, as well as population data, cervical cancer cases and mortality, were collected. The 13 QIs were calculated.ResultsThe HPV screening test had a high population coverage of 83%, with most primary screenings using self-sampling. Follow-up for women with CIN2+ (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia) in cytology within 3 months was 60%, increasing to 95% or more after 1 year. The incidence and mortality of cervical cancer have decreased in recent years. Some QIs became outdated due to program changes, and there was significant variability between regions.ConclusionsThe population coverage of the HPV screening test was not affected by the cancellation of screening appointments during the pandemic, because of switching to primary self-sampling. Improving follow-up of screen-positives and boosting population test coverage using HPV self-sampling are key areas for potential improvement.
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.