Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26315516›Full record

ReviewThe Surgical clinics of North America2015

Principles of Cancer Screening.

Paul F Pinsky

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The Surgical clinics of North America, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Tumor risks and surveillance outcomes inEndocrine oncology (Bristol, England) · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Current Status of the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea: History, Achievements, and Future Directions.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

1 author.

Paul F PinskyDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 5E108, Bethesda, MD 20910, USA. Electronic address: pp4f@nih.gov.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer screening has long been an important component of the struggle to reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality from cancer. Notwithstanding this history, many aspects of cancer screening remain poorly understood. This article presents a summary of basic principles of cancer screening that are relevant for researchers, clinicians, and public health officials alike.

Indexed as

CanadaCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFalse Positive ReactionsHumansMass ScreeningNeoplasmsPractice Guidelines as TopicPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificityUnited StatesCancer screeningLead timeNumber needed to screenOverdiagnosisPerformance characteristicsTargeted screening

Identifiers

PMID26315516
PMCPMC4555845

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.