Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of bmjcredLink to Publisher's site
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 September 13; 293(6548): 659–664.
PMCID: PMC1341512

Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. IARC Working Group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes.


A collaborative study of screening programmes in eight countries was performed to estimate the risks of cervical cancer associated with different screening policies. Most of the data came from centrally organised screening programmes. Relative protection was higher in women who had had two or more negative results of screening tests than in those who had had only one negative smear, particularly in the first five years after the last test. There was little difference in the protection afforded by screening every year compared with every three years, but screening only once every five or 10 years offered appreciably less protection. The age of the women did not affect the sensitivity of the test or the sojourn time of the disease (the length of the detectable preclinical phase during which abnormal cytology could be picked up if a smear were taken); invasive cancer in women under 25 was rare. Centrally organised screening programmes were more effective than uncoordinated screening. Screening programmes should be aimed principally at women aged 35-60 but should start some years before the age of 35, and the intervals between screening should be three years or less.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.3M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Macgregor JE, Moss SM, Parkin DM, Day NE. A case-control study of cervical cancer screening in north east Scotland. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985 May 25;290(6481):1543–1546. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Fidler HK, Boyes DA, Worth AJ. Cervical cancer detection in British Columbia. A progress report. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1968 Apr;75(4):392–404. [PubMed]
  • Boyes DA, Morrison B, Knox EG, Draper GJ, Miller AB. A cohort study of cervical cancer screening in British Columbia. Clin Invest Med. 1982;5(1):1–29. [PubMed]
  • Johannesson G, Geirsson G, Day N, Tulinius H. Screening for cancer of the uterine cervix in Iceland 1965--1978. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982;61(3):199–203. [PubMed]
  • Berget A. Influence of population screening on morbidity and mortality of cancer of the uterine cervix in Maribo Amt. Dan Med Bull. 1979 Apr;26(2):91–100. [PubMed]
  • Stenkvist B, Bergström R, Eklund G, Fox CH. Papanicolaou smear screening and cervical cancer. What can you expect? JAMA. 1984 Sep 21;252(11):1423–1426. [PubMed]
  • Raymond L, Obradovic M, Riotton G. Une étude cas-témoins pour l'évaluation du dépistage cytologique du cancer du col utérin. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 1984;32(1):10–15. [PubMed]
  • Day NE, Walter SD. Simplified models of screening for chronic disease: estimation procedures from mass screening programmes. Biometrics. 1984 Mar;40(1):1–14. [PubMed]

Articles from British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group