Cervical cancer screening: Authors' reply

BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7407.162-a (Published 17 July 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:162
  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 …

    View Full Text

    Log in

    Log in through your institution


    * For online subscription