User talk:Dashdon/Cervical screening/Artsenic17 Peer Review

Thank you guys for contributing to this work. You both made a lot of important edits, and it looks like your lead paragraph is very clear and concise. I would maybe recommend restructuring the content in the article so that you talk about screening/diagnostic methods first since you mentioned it first in the lead paragraph before recommendations. I also liked how you mentioned a lot of different guidelines/recommendations based on country; it gives a perspective on cervical screening that is not all U.S centric. However, I would be mindful of making a general statement about multiple low-resource countries since I am sure there is much diversity in policy/practice within resource settings. Maybe just list the specific countries ( but this is just a suggestion) since many well-resourced countries also have low-resourced areas. Finally, I would just recommend being mindful of any medical jargon and the overall reading level of the article since cervical cancer is a complex topic. I noticed you added a figure about co-testing which is nice and a helpful visual that I am sure readers will appreciate. However, I think a little more elaboration on the figure and the co-testing paragraph just because I wasn't too sure about the link between cervical cancer and CIN. Additionally, I know you provided links to other articles, but it might be useful to give a small definition/simplification of the terms: colposcopy, LSIL, ASC-US, AGC, HSIL, ASH-H, etc. However, these are just suggestions to help lower the reading level of the article. Artsenic17 (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)