Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(2)
Acceptability was high; 64% wanted to be tested, but 78% wanted more frequent smear tests (>1 annually) if they tested positive.
This figure can be explained by the observation that women with frequent smear taking activity were more likely to continue such a pattern, whereas women who had a smear taken rarely or never, were less likely to have a smear in the near future.
Similar(58)
In this study, 67% said they would feel less nervous if they could have less frequent smears, yet 64% preferred follow-up to be a smear test at 6 and 12 months rather than an HPV test in 1 year, and 13% wanted both.
The worry about frequent Pap smear screening is that tests can result in a large number of false positives that lead to sometimes painful biopsies and put women at risk for pregnancy complications in the future, like preterm labor and low-birth-weight infants.
Similar assumptions about HPV acquisition from female partners may place lesbians at risk for delayed detection of cervical cancer by less frequent Pap smear screening or none.
In childhood TB, smear-positive PTB was significantly less frequent, whereas smear-negative PTB and TB meningitis were more common.
But because the transformation from abnormal cell to cancer normally takes a decade, and frequent Pap smears are recommended, it has been a successful strategy — though the vaccine, used properly, might well prove a useful adjunct.
Previous studies have base analysis on less frequent Pap smears than ours; some of them did not pay sufficient attention to the lag period which is supposed to play an important part in cervical carcinogenesis.
The review showed misclassification to be frequent in these smears collected in the period 1966-82.
Cultures identified Serratia marcescens, and smears showed frequent polymorphonuclear cells; therapy was changed to tigecycline, and antiTB treatment was stopped.
Women who have received an abnormal smear result have reported frequent worries and feeling worse about their body (Lerman et al, 1991; Wardle et al, 1995).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com