Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ University of Califo...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Article . 2016 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Cervical Cancer Screening

Authors: Sawaya, George F; Smith-McCune, Karen;

Cervical Cancer Screening

Abstract

Recent changes in cervical cancer screening and management guidelines reflect our evolving knowledge about cervical carcinogenesis. In the pursuit of precision, however, decision-making has become complicated. We provide an overview of cervical cancer screening with a focus on what clinicians can do to maximize screening benefits while minimizing screening harms. The approach relies on categorizing women at each step in the screening process by their estimated risk of high-grade precancerous lesions and cervical cancer. Current screening guidelines are designed to find a reasonable balance between benefits and harms by recommending less screening in most women. Current management guidelines are designed to assure consistent decisions regarding referral to colposcopy. After initial colposcopy, we outline three major management options based on risk assessment. For treatment, we recommend ablational procedures when appropriate because they are similarly effective, less costly, and potentially safer than excisional procedures. We advise caution in adopting new screening strategies until they demonstrate cost-effective patient-centered improvements compared with current strategies. Clinicians can maximize their effect on cervical cancer prevention by being attentive to guidelines, assuring that women have access to appropriate human papillomavirus vaccination and providing low-cost, high-quality screening and treatment.

Country
United States
Keywords

Comparative Effectiveness Research, Oncology and Carcinogenesis, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cervical Cancer, Paediatrics and Reproductive Medicine, Clinical Research, Humans, Mass Screening, Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cancer, screening and diagnosis, Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Prevention, Uncertainty, Disease Management, Health Services, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Detection, Good Health and Well Being, Reproductive Medicine, Colposcopy, Immunization, Reproductive medicine, Female, Patient Safety, 4.4 Population screening

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    21
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
21
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Green
bronze
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research