Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T10:53:46.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the Effectiveness of a Cervical Cancer Screening Program in the German Democratic Republic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

K. Ebeling  and
P. Nischan
K. Ebeling
Affiliation:
Academy of Sciences of the German Democratic Republic
P. Nischan
Affiliation:
Academy of Sciences of the German Democratic Republic
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 137 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1.Aristizabal, N., Cuello, C., Correa, P., Collazos, T., & Haenszel, W.The impact of vaginal cytology on cervical cancer risks in Cali, Colombia. International Journal of Cancer, 1984, 34, 5–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Berndt, H., Lehmann, K., & Neuser, D.Das Zytologieprogramm der Hauptstadt der DDR, Berlin. 1. Mitteilung. Das Deutsche Gesundheitswesen, 1975, 30, 1258–63.Google Scholar
3.Berrino, F., Gatta, G., D'Alto, M., Crosignani, P., & Riboli, E. Use of case-control studies in evaluation of screening programs. In Prorok, P. C. & Miller, A. B. (eds.), Screening for cancer. I. General principles on evaluation of screening for cancer and screening for lung, bladder and oral cancer. A report of a UICC International Workshop. Venice, Italy, Nov. 14–16, 1983. Geneva: UICC, 1984, 29–43.Google Scholar
4.Boyes, D. A.The value of a Pap smear program and suggestions for its implementation. Cancer, 1981, 48, Suppl., 613–21.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Clarke, E. A. & Anderson, T. W.Does screening by “Pap” smears help prevent cervical cancer? A case-control study. Lancet, 2, 1979, 8132, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Day, N. E.Effect of cervical cancer screening in Scandinavia. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1984, 63, 714–18.Google ScholarPubMed
7.Day, N. E. The epidemiological basis for evaluating different screening policies. In Hakama, M., Miller, A. B., & Day, N. E. (eds.), Screening for cancer of the uterine cervix. Lyon: EIRC, 1986, 199–209.Google Scholar
8.Ebeling, K., Berndt, H., Neumann, H.-G., Neuser, D., Nischan, P., & Seidenschnur, G.Screening zur Verhütung und Früherkennung des Zervixkarzinoms in der DDR—eine Analyse. Archiv für Geschwulstforschung, 1981, 51, 663–71.Google Scholar
9.Ebeling, K. & Nischan, P. Organization and results of cervical cancer screening in the German Democratic Republic. In Hakama, M., Miller, A. B., & Day, N. E. (eds.), Screening for cancer of the uterine cervix. Lyon: EIRC, 1986, 251–66.Google Scholar
10.Hakama, M. Mass screening for cervical cancer in Finland. In Miller, A. B. (ed.), Screening in cancer. A report of a UICC International Workshop, Toronto, Canada, 04 24–27, 1978. Geneva: UICC, 1978, 93–107.Google Scholar
11.Hakama, M. Trends in the incidence of cervical cancer in the Nordic countries. In Magnus, K. (ed.), Trends in cancer incidence. Causes and practical implications. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corp., 1982, 279–92.Google Scholar
12.Helm, G., Johnsson, J.-E., & Lindberg, L.-G.The impact of cytological screening on the incidence of invasive cervical cancer. Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 1980, 59, 271–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Johannesson, G., Geirsson, G., & Day, N. E.The effect of mass screening in Iceland, 1965–1974, on the incidence and mortality of cervical carcinoma. International Journal of Cancer, 1978, 21, 418–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Johannesson, G., Geirsson, G., Day, N. E., & Tulinius, H.Screening for cancer of the uterine cervix in Iceland 1965–1978. Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 1982, 61, 199–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.La Vecchia, C., Decarli, A., Gentile, A., Franceschi, S., Fasoli, M., & Tognoni, G.“Pap” smear and the risk of cervical neoplasia: Quantitative estimates from a case control study. Lancet, 2, 1984, 779–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Miller, A. B., Lindsay, J., & Hill, G. B.Mortality from cancer of the uterus in Canada and its relationship to screening for cancer of the cervix. International Journal of Cancer, 1976, 17, 602–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Morrison, A. S.The effects of early treatment, lead time and length bias on the mortality experienced by cases detected by screening. International Journal of Epidemiology, 1982, 11, 261–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Neumann, H.-G., Büttner, H.-H., & Seidenschnur, G.A computer-controlled mass-screening programme for early detection of cervical cancer and its pre-stages in the district of Rostock (G.D.R.). Archiv für Geschwulstforschung, 1979, 49, 258–63.Google ScholarPubMed
19.Prorok, P. C., Chamberlain, J., Day, N. E., Hakama, M., & Miller, A. B.UICC Workshop on the evaluation of screening programmes for cancer. International Journal of Cancer, 1984, 34, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed