Cervical cancer screening
1990
Concerns About Cervical Cancer Screening Findings
Commentary
Author Information
Author(s): G.J. van Oortmarrsen, J.D.F. Habbema
Primary Institution: Erasmus University
Conclusion
The authors argue that the reported low progression rate of carcinoma in situ may lead to unnecessary treatments.
Supporting Evidence
- The reported progression rate of carcinoma in situ is only 12.2%, which the authors believe is too low.
- The absence of hysterectomies in the model may lead to an underestimation of the progression rate.
- Detection rates from other screening projects are much lower than the model's predictions.
Takeaway
The study suggests that many women might be treated for cervical cancer when they don't need to be, based on a model that might not be accurate.
Potential Biases
The findings may be biased due to the model's assumptions not being validated against real-world data.
Limitations
The model does not account for hysterectomies, which may affect the progression rate of cervical cancer.
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website