ReviewCancer2004
Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening.
Review in Cancer, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to Improve Follow-up of Positive Results on Fecal Blood Tests: A Systematic Review.Annals of internal medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Implementation of a Quality Improvement and Clinical Decision Support Tool for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care: Process Evaluation.JMIR cancer · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Primary Care Practitioner Perceptions on the Follow-up of Abnormal Cancer Screening Test Results.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Peer navigation improves diagnostic follow-up after breast cancer screening among Korean American women: results of a randomized trial.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2010Trial
- Physician reminders to promote surveillance colonoscopy for colorectal adenomas: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2008Trial
- Untimely follow-up after cervical cancer screening: A qualitative study among healthcare providers in Flanders (Belgium).PloS one · 2026Article
- Delays in the diagnosis and treatment of cervical cancer in the department of Meta, 2017–2023: a cross-sectional studyRevista colombiana de obstetricia y ginecologia · 2025Article
- Medical Home Implementation and Follow-Up of Cancer-Related Abnormal Test Results in the Veterans Health Administration.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- The impact of in-house pathology services on downstaging cervical cancer in Tanzania over an 18-year period.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2024Article
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Cervical Cancer Screening From Three U.S. Healthcare Settings.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023Article
- Comorbidities and Risk Factors of Patients Diagnosed with CRC after Positive Fecal Test in Real Life.Cancers · 2022Article
- Optimization of a Quality Improvement Tool for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care: Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Delays in Follow-up Care for Abnormal Mammograms in Mobile Mammography Versus Fixed-Clinic Patients.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Patient Experience of Managing Adherence to Repeat Lung Cancer Screening.Journal of patient experience · 2022Article
- Barriers to completing colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test.Israel journal of health policy research · 2021Article
- NACP: Partnership for Native American Cancer Prevention.Cancer health disparities · 2021Article
- Effect of a complex intervention to improve post-vision screening referral compliance among pre-school children in China: A cluster randomized clinical trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2020Article
- Repeated Automated Mobile Text Messaging Reminders for Follow-Up of Positive Fecal Occult Blood Tests: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Article
- Determinants of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Follow-Up And Invasive Cervical Cancer Among Uninsured and Underinsured Women in New Jersey.Journal of health care for the poor and underserved · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The potential reduction in morbidity and mortality through cancer screening cannot be realized without receipt of appropriate follow-up care for abnormalities identified via screening. In this paper, the authors critically examine the existing literature on correlates of receipt of appropriate follow-up care for screen-detected abnormalities, as well as the literature on interventions designed to increase rates of receipt of follow-up care. Lessons learned describe what is known and not known about factors that are related to or predict receipt of follow-up care. Similarly, effective interventions to increase follow-up are described and gaps identified. A conceptual model is developed that categorizes the health care system in the United States as comprising four levels: policy, practice, provider, and patient. Some patient-level factors that influence follow-up receipt are identified, but the lack of data severely limit the understanding of provider, practice, and policy-level correlates. The majority of intervention studies to increase follow-up receipt have focused on patient-level factors and have targeted follow-up of abnormal Papanicolaou smears. Insufficient information is available regarding the effectiveness of provider, practice, or policy-level interventions. Standard definitions of what constitutes appropriate follow-up are lacking, which severely limit comparability of findings across studies. The validity of various methods of obtaining outcome data has not been clearly established. More research is needed on interventions targeting provider, system, and policy-level factors, particularly interventions focusing on follow-up of colorectal and breast abnormalities. Standardization of definitions and measures is needed to facilitate comparisons across studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.