Variations in the screening history and appropriateness of management of cervical cancer in South East England

European Journal of Cancer Part A

Volumn 32, Issue 7, 1996, Pages 1198-1204

  Wolfe, C D A ^a   Tilling, K ^a   Bourne, H M ^b   Raju, K S ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b Thames Cancer Registry   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

cervix neoplasms; delivery of health care; practice guidelines; process assessment (health care); survival analysis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANAMNESIS; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SURVIVAL RATE; TREATMENT PLANNING; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

EID: 0030176388     PISSN: 09598049     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0959-8049(96)00038-X     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. 1. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Cancer Statistics, Registrations, England and Wales (1989). Series MB1 no.22. London, HMSO, 1994.
2. 2. Laara E. Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries: association with organised screening programmes. Lancet 1987, 1, 1247-1249.
3. 3. Macgregor JE, Campbell MK, Mann EMF, Swanson KY. Screening for cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia in north-east Scotland shows fall in incidence and mortality from invasive cancer with concomitant rise in preinvasive disease. Br Med J 1994, 305, 1407-1411.
4. 4. Department of Health. The Health of the Nation. London, HMSO, 1991.
5. 5. Duncan ID. Guidelines for Clinical Practice and Programme Management. Oxford, National Coordinating Network, NHS Cervical Screening Programme, 1993.
6. 6. Morgan PR, Anderson MC, Buckley CH, et al. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists micro-invasive carcinoma of the cervix study: preliminary results. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993, 100, 644-668.
7. 7. Thomas GM, Stehman FB. Early invasive disease: assessment and management. Semin Oncol 1994, 21, 17-24.
8. 8. A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services. Expert Advisory Group on Cancer. Department of Health, 1994.
9. 9. Standing Subcommittee on Cancer of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee of the Department of Health. Management of Ovarian Cancer. Current Clinical Practices. Report of a working group (Chairman: JS Scott), 1991.
10. 10. Cluzeau F, Littlejohns P, Grimshaw JM. Appraising clinical guidelines: towards a 'which' guide for purchasers. Qual Health Care 1994, 3, 121-122.
11. 11. Public Health Common Data Set. England and Wales 1991. Department of Health, 1994.
12. 12. FIGO. Annual Results of Treatment in Gynaecological Cancer, 20th Volume, 1988.
13. 13. World Health Organisation. International Classification of Diseases. 1975, revision of volume 1.
14. 14. Cox DR, Oakes D. Analysis of Survival Data. Chapman and Hall, 1984.
15. 15. Holland WW. European Community Atlas of 'Avoidable Death', 2nd Edition. Commission of the European Communities Health Services Research Series No. 6. Oxford Medical Publications, 1991.
16. 16. Harding MJ, Paul J, Gillis CR, Kaye SB. Management of malignant teratoma: does referral to a specialist unit matter? Lancet 1993, 341, 999-1002.
17. 17. Gillis CR, Hole DJ, Still RM, Davis J, Kaye SB. Medical audit, cancer registration, and survival in ovarian cancer. Lancet 1991, 337, 611-612.
18. 18. McArdle CS, Hole D. Impact of variability among surgeons on postoperative morbidity and mortality and ultimate survival. Br Med J 1991, 302, 1501-1505.
19. 19. Grimshaw JM, Russell IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 1993, 342, 1317-1322.
20. 20. Macleod A, Kitchener HC, Parkin DE, et al. Cervical carcinoma in the Grampion region (1980-1991): a population-based study of survival and cervical cytology history. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994, 101, 797-803.
21. 21. Meanwell CA, Kelly KA, Wilson S, et al. Young age as a prognostic factor in cervical cancer: analysis of population based data from 10022 cases. Br Med J 1988, 296, 386-391.
22. 22. Lomas J, Enkin M, Anderson GM, Hannah WJ, Vayda E, Singer J. Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous cesarean section. JAMA 1991, 265, 2202-2207.