Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24041703›Full record

ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2013

Quantification of harms in cancer screening trials: literature review.

Bruno Heleno, Maria F Thomsen, David S Rodrigues, Karsten J Jørgensen, John Brodersen

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 61 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 128 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Patient-centered outcomes among lung cancer screening recipients with computed tomography: a systematic review.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2014
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Population screening for cirrhosis.Hepatology communications · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Bruno HelenoResearch Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, PO Box 2099, 1014 Copenhagen K, Denmark.
Maria F Thomsen
David S Rodrigues
Karsten J Jørgensen
John Brodersen
University of Copenhagen · DKCochrane · DKUniversidade Nova de Lisboa · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess how often harm is quantified in randomised trials of cancer screening.

designTwo authors independently extracted data on harms from randomised cancer screening trials. Binary outcomes were described as proportions and continuous outcomes with medians and interquartile ranges. DATA SOURCES: For cancer screening previously assessed in a Cochrane review, we identified trials from their reference lists and updated the search in CENTRAL. For cancer screening not assessed in a Cochrane review, we searched CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised trials that assessed the efficacy of cancer screening for reducing incidence of cancer, cancer specific mortality, and/or all cause mortality. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility. Two reviewers, who were blinded to the identity of the study's authors, assessed whether absolute numbers or incidence rates of outcomes related to harm were provided separately for the screening and control groups. The outcomes were false positive findings, overdiagnosis, negative psychosocial consequences, somatic complications, invasive follow-up procedures, all cause mortality, and withdrawals because of adverse events.

resultsOut of 4590 articles assessed, 198 (57 trials, 10 screening technologies) matched the inclusion criteria. False positive findings were quantified in two of 57 trials (4%, 95% confidence interval 0% to 12%), overdiagnosis in four (7%, 2% to 18%), negative psychosocial consequences in five (9%, 3% to 20%), somatic complications in 11 (19%, 10% to 32%), use of invasive follow-up procedures in 27 (47%, 34% to 61%), all cause mortality in 34 (60%, 46% to 72%), and withdrawals because of adverse effects in one trial (2%, 0% to 11%). The median percentage of space in the results section that reported harms was 12% (interquartile range 2-19%).

conclusionsCancer screening trials seldom quantify the harms of screening. Of the 57 cancer screening trials examined, the most important harms of screening--overdiagnosis and false positive findings--were quantified in only 7% and 4%, respectively.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerConfidence IntervalsDiagnostic ErrorsHealth Services ResearchHumansNeoplasmsOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStress, PsychologicalUnnecessary Procedures

Identifiers

PMID24041703
PMCPMC4793399
OpenAlexW2022766966

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.