Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23299842›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2013

Time lag to benefit after screening for breast and colorectal cancer: meta-analysis of survival data from the United States, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Denmark.

Sei J Lee, W John Boscardin, Irena Stijacic-Cenzer, Jessamyn Conell-Price, Sarah O'Brien, Louise C Walter

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 138 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
138citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–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

138 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Practical Assessment and Management of Vulnerabilities in Older Patients Receiving Chemotherapy: ASCO Guideline for Geriatric Oncology.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2018
    Guideline
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Elderly Patients: An Individualized Decision-Making Approach for Screening and Surveillance.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Review
  20. Article

78 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sei J LeeDivision of Geriatrics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA 94121, USA.
W John Boscardin
Irena Stijacic-Cenzer
Jessamyn Conell-Price
Sarah O'Brien
Louise C Walter

Funding

CTSA: K12 COMPONENTKL2RR024130 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI JOHNSTON, S. CLAIBORNE · 2006 to 2011
$19.3M
Prostate-Specific Antigen Practices and Outcomes in the ElderlyR01CA134425 · NCI · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE/RES/EDU · PI WALTER, LOUISE C. · 2009 to 2013
$1.7M
Midcareer Mentoring Award for Patient-Oriented Research in AgingK24AG041180 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI WALTER, LOUISE C. · 2011 to 2016
$909k
Individualizing Treatment for Nursing Home Residents with Diabetes MellitusK23AG040779 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LEE, SEI · 2011 to 2013
$526k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA134425NCI NIH HHS R01CA134425NCRR NIH HHS KL2RR024130NIA NIH HHS K23 AG040779NIA NIH HHS K23AG040779NIA NIH HHS K24 AG041180NIA NIH HHS K24AG041180
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine a pooled, quantitative estimate of the length of time needed after breast or colorectal cancer screening before a survival benefit is observed.

designMeta-analysis of survival data from population based, randomized controlled trials comparing populations screened and not screened for breast or colorectal cancer. Trials were identified as high quality by reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration and United States Preventive Services Task Force.

settingTrials undertaken in the United States, Denmark, United Kingdom, and Sweden. POPULATION: Screened patients older than 40 years. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to death from breast or colorectal cancer in screened and control populations.

interventionsFecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening, mammography for breast cancer screening.

resultsOur study included five and four eligible trials of breast and colorectal cancer screening, respectively. For breast cancer screening, 3.0 years (95% confidence interval 1.1 to 6.3) passed before one death from breast cancer was prevented for every 5000 women screened. On average across included studies, it took 10.7 years (4.4 to 21.6) before one death from breast cancer was prevented for 1000 women screened. For colorectal cancer screening, 4.8 years (2.0 to 9.7) passed before one death from colorectal cancer was prevented for 5000 patients screened. On average across included studies, it took 10.3 years (6.0 to 16.4) before one death from colorectal cancer was prevented for 1000 patients screened.

conclusionsOur results suggest that screening for breast and colorectal cancer is most appropriate for patients with a life expectancy greater than 10 years. Incorporating time lag estimates into screening guidelines would encourage a more explicit consideration of the risks and benefits of screening for breast and colorectal cancer.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsMammographyMass ScreeningOccult BloodAdultAgedDenmarkEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLife ExpectancyMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23299842
PMCPMC4688425

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.