ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2013
Quantification of harms in cancer screening trials: literature review.
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.
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
61 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 128 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Psychological Impact of Screen-Detected Cancer: A Systematic Review.Psycho-oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening-A systematic review with meta-analyses.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- HCC surveillance improves early detection, curative treatment receipt, and survival in patients with cirrhosis: A meta-analysis.Journal of hepatology · 2022Pooled it
- Presentation of Benefits and Harms in US Cancer Screening and Prevention Guidelines: Systematic Review.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2016Pooled it
- 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 · 2014Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Virtual lung screening trial (VLST): An in silico study inspired by the national lung screening trial for lung cancer detection.Medical image analysis · 2025Article
- Reply to: "Surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with primary biliary cholangitis: For all or just for some?"JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2025Article
- Patient-Perceived Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Net Benefit of Surveillance: A Multicenter Survey Study.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Virtual Lung Screening Trial (VLST): AnArXiv · 2025Article
- Article
- Physical harms in colorectal cancer screening: An overview of the reporting in systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials.PloS one · 2025Review
- Population screening for cirrhosis.Hepatology communications · 2024Review
- Development of an overarching framework for anticipating and assessing adverse and other unintended consequences of public health interventions (CONSEQUENT): a best-fit framework synthesis.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of a Machine Learning-Based Model Used for Predicting Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk in Patients with Hepatitis B-Related Cirrhosis: A Retrospective Study.OncoTargets and therapy · 2024Article
- Article
- Rates of Downstream Procedures and Complications Associated With Lung Cancer Screening in Routine Clinical Practice : A Retrospective Cohort Study.Annals of internal medicine · 2024Article
1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.