Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16981254›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2006

Screening in liver disease.

Paolo Del Poggio, Marzio Mazzoleni

Abstract readEditorialReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Evidence-based clinical guidelines for immigrants and refugees.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Paolo Del Poggio
Marzio Mazzoleni

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A disease is suitable for screening if it is common, if the target population can be identified and reached and if both a good screening test and an effective therapy are available. Of the most common liver diseases only viral hepatitis and genetic hemochromatosis partially satisfy these conditions. Hepatitis C is common, the screening test is good and the therapy eliminates the virus in half of the cases, but problems arise in the definition of the target population. In fact generalized population screening is not endorsed by international guidelines, although some recommend screening immigrants from high prevalence countries. Opportunistic screening (case finding) of individuals with classic risk factors, such as transfusion before 1992 and drug addiction, is the most frequently used strategy, but there is disagreement whether prison inmates, individuals with a history of promiscuous or traumatic sex and health care workers should be screened. In a real practice setting the performance of opportunistic screening by general practitioners is low but can be ameliorated by training programs. Screening targeted to segments of the population or mass campaigns are expensive and therefore interventions should be aimed to improve opportunistic screening and the detection skills of general practitioners. Regarding genetic hemochromatosis there is insufficient evidence for population screening, but individual physicians can decide to screen racial groups with a high prevalence of the disease, such as people in early middle age and of northern European origin. In the other cases opportunistic screening of high risk individuals should be performed, with a high level of suspicion in case of unexplained liver disease, diabetes, juvenile artropathy, sexual dysfunction and skin pigmentation.

Indexed as

HemochromatosisHepatitis CHumansLiver DiseasesMass ScreeningRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID16981254
PMCPMC4088191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.