Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23645522›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2013

Screening for new primary cancers in cancer survivors compared to non-cancer controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mark Corkum, Jill A Hayden, George Kephart, Robin Urquhart, Coralynne Schlievert, Geoffrey Porter

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Impact of Morbidity and Disability on Attendance at Organized Breast Cancer-Screening Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Female allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant survivors' perspectives on cervical cancer screening: a retrospective study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Survivorship care plans and adherence to breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines among cancer survivors in a national sample.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Preventive health care in blood cancer survivors: results from the ABC study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mark CorkumDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, 5790 University Ave, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Jill A Hayden
George Kephart
Robin Urquhart
Coralynne Schlievert
Geoffrey Porter
Dalhousie University · CACancer Care Nova Scotia · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe goal of this study was to synthesize evidence comparing cancer screening receipt between cancer survivors and non-cancer controls by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases from inception through April 1, 2010 using search terms related to cancer, survivorship, and cancer screening. Studies were included if they reported a comparison of cancer screening receipt between cancer survivors and non-cancer controls. We performed a meta-analysis on the effect of cancer survivorship on breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening receipt.

resultsOur search strategy identified 1,778 titles, of which 20 met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. In our meta-analyses, cancer survivors were more likely to be screened for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer than non-cancer controls (pooled odds ratio, 1.27; 95 % CI, 1.19-1.36). We observed significant heterogeneity between studies, most of which remained unexplained after subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Important contextual factors, such as how screening programs operate, were not reported in the primary literature. Many cancer survivors (along with non-cancer controls) still did not receive cancer screening.

conclusionCompared with non-cancer controls, cancer survivors receive more frequent screening for new primary breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers. Future research should seek to determine whether increased uptake of cancer screening is associated with improved outcomes during cancer survivorship. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that cancer survivors received more frequent screening for second primary breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers than non-cancer controls. As many cancer survivors are at an increased risk of developing a second primary cancer, future research should seek to determine whether this increased uptake of cancer screening in cancer survivors leads to improved outcomes during cancer survivorship.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerCase-Control StudiesFemaleHealth Plan ImplementationHumansMaleNeoplasms, Second PrimarySurvivors

Identifiers

PMID23645522
PMCPMC3734601
OpenAlexW2085673437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.