ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2026
Impact of repeatedly screening negative on cervical cancer risk.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe demonstrated that cervical cancer risk following any screening result is lower if there is a known prior negative screening history vs an unknown screening history. We extended these findings to look at how screening performs following repeatedly negative screening results.
methodsApproximately 1.7 million women aged 30-64 years underwent triennial human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology co-testing from 2003 to 2021. We modeled 5-year risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or more severe diagnoses (CIN3+) and invasive cervical cancer for the initial co-test, and then successive rounds following negative co-testing. A logistic-Weibull prevalence-incidence model was used to model risks.
resultsHPV test positivity was greater than cytology positivity for only the first co-test, and both positivity rates decreased with each screening round. Diagnostic yields of CIN3+ and cancer declined with each round of screening so the first screen yielded 8-fold more CIN3+ and invasive cancer than the fifth screen following 4 consecutive negative co-tests. Five-year risks of CIN3+ for positive and negative HPV and cytology results, individually or combined, decreased considerably after the first screen, with smaller decreases in each subsequent round. For cancer, we noticed a considerable decrease with the first screen only. Five-year CIN3+ risks were greater for positive HPV or cytology results, with a longer antecedent screening interval and younger age at screening (Ptrend < .001).
conclusionsTriennial screening that includes HPV testing becomes inefficient after a single and more so after multiple negative screens. These data support the use of longer screening intervals, especially following negative screen(s).
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.