Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24595678›Full record

ReviewCurrent oncology reports2014

Communicating the benefits and harms of cancer screening.

Lindsay J L Forbes, Amanda J Ramirez

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current oncology reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. How Do Women Interpret the NHS Information Leaflet about Cervical Cancer Screening?Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019
    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

2 authors.

Lindsay J L ForbesKing's College London Promoting Early Cancer Presentation Group, Capital House, 42 Weston Street, London, SE1 3QD, UK, lindsay.forbes@kcl.ac.uk.
Amanda J Ramirez

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast and cervical screening each have a distinct balance of benefits and harms. While they are both likely to reduce mortality, breast screening is associated with a greater relative frequency of serious harms than cervical screening. A unique approach has been adopted in England with respect to providing information on cancer screening with the goal of facilitating informed choice. The new materials provide more detail than previous information about the benefits and harms of screening as well as the scientific uncertainties. While there is a uniform format and the information covers the same key issues in both breast and cervical screening programmes, the emphasis and detail varies according to balance of benefits and harms within these programmes.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningBreast NeoplasmsEnglandFemaleHumansInformed ConsentState MedicineUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

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.