Letter

Cervical cancer screening: Authors' reply

BMJ 2003; 327 doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7407.162-a (Published 17 July 2003)
Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:162.2

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

  1. Joël Coste (coste@cochin.univ-paris5.fr), professor of medical statistics,
  2. Béatrix Cochand-Priollet, assistant-professor of pathology,
  3. Patricia de Cremoux, assistant-professor of pharmacology
  1. Département de Biostatistique, Hôpital Cochin, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Faculté de Médecine Cochin-Port Royal, Université Paris V, Paris, France
  2. Service d'Anatomie et Cytologie Pathologiques, Hôpital Lariboisière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris
  3. Laboratoire de Physiopathologie, Département de Biologie des Tumeurs, Institut Curie, Paris

    EDITOR—Ind and Whitley, as well as other respondents to our paper on bmj.com, refer to the issue of our split sample design.1 Many such previous studies show that monolayers are superior to conventional smears (and were used to obtain approval from the Food and Drug Administration for ThinPreps). Now some who praised this design when it favoured monolayers are discovering that it is “flawed” or “faulty” when it gives the opposite results.

    Our paper shows that the main issue for …

    Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment

    Subscribe

    Article access

    Article access for 1 day

    Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

    The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

    * Prices do not include VAT

    Rapid responses

    THIS WEEK'S POLL

    Read related article

    See previous polls

    BMJ most popular