1. Knottnerus JA, Tugwell P. Primum non nocere: appropriate evidence assessment and fair judgment over time. J Clin Epidemiol 2020;122: A6–7; Raffle AE, Gray JAM. The 1960s cervical screening incident at National Women’s Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand: insights for screening research, policy making, and practice. J Clin Epidemiol 2020;122:A8–13.; Chalmers I. The “unfortunate experiment” that was not, and the indebtedness of women and children to Herbert (“Herb”) Green (1916-2001). J Clin Epidemiol 2020;122:A14–20.; Committee of Inquiry into Allegations Concerning the Treatment of Cervical Cancer at National Women’s Hospital and into Other Related Matters. The report of the cervical cancer inquiry. Auckland, NZ: Government Printing Office; 1988: Available at https://www.moh.govt.nz/ notebook/nbbooks.nsf/0/64D0EE19BA628E4FCC256E450001CC21/ $file/The%20Cartwright%20Inquiry%201988.pdf
2. Expanding the evidence on cancer screening: the value of scientific, social and ethical perspectives;Rychetnik;Med J Aust,2013
3. Avoiding harm and supporting autonomy are under-prioritised in cancer-screening policies and practices;Parker;Eur J Cancer,2017
4. Common methods of measuring ‘informed choice’ in screening participation: challenges and future directions;Ghanouni;Prev Med Rep,2016
5. Guidelines in the era of realistic medicine;Kinsella;J R Coll Physicians Edinb,2016