ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2009
Screening practice and misplaced priorities.
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health beliefs and illness perceptions as related to mammography uptake in randomly selected women in Greece.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 12 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo estimate cancer screening coverage among a large sample of Greek individuals.
methods7012 adults from 30 Hellenic areas were surveyed. Tests included: faecal occult blood test, sigmoidoscopy,chest X-ray, urine test, testicular examination,trans-rectal ultrasound, full blood count, skin examination,digital rectal examination, PSA, Pap test, mammography,clinical breast examination (CBE), self breast examination and breast ultrasound.
resultsEighty-eight percent of males and 93% of females declared being interested in cancer screening; 37.8% of men and 37.9% of women had had a medical consultation for screening purpose in the previous 2 years. Less than 2%reported having received screening for colorectal cancer or skin malignancies. Screening for cervical cancer, mammography and CBE was reported by 39.6%, 22.8% and 27.9% of females respectively. Twenty percent of males reported screening for prostate cancer.
conclusionThe actual opportunistic screening approach presents important deficiencies with displaced priorities in test performance and a low proportion of individuals undergoing recommended tests.
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.