SynthesisJournal of the National Cancer Institute2016
Presentation of Benefits and Harms in US Cancer Screening and Prevention Guidelines: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 4 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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Presentation of Benefits and Harms in Cancer Screening Guidelines for Koreans: A Systematic Review.Cancer research and treatment · 2025Pooled it
- Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening-A systematic review with meta-analyses.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Antenatal screening practices in the WHO European Region: a mixed methods study.Journal of global health · 2020Pooled it
- Men's perspectives of prostate cancer screening: A systematic review of qualitative studies.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Proposal for Modified Alpha Fetoprotein Use in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance: Analysis of the 2018-2020 National Cancer Screening Program.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Urgent need to recognize that Disease-Causing TP53 variants with atypical penetrance require distinct clinical recommendations.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Validation of a blood test for multi-cancer risk stratification in a lung cancer screening cohort.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- MRI after focal therapy for prostate cancer: what radiologists must know?Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Analysis of the predictive value of the prostate-specific antigen-to-neutrophil ratio for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Physical harms in colorectal cancer screening: An overview of the reporting in systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials.PloS one · 2025Review
- Article
- [Diagnostic efficacy of targeted biopsy combined with regional systematic biopsy in prostate cancer in patients with PI-RADS 4-5].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2024Article
- Rates of Downstream Procedures and Complications Associated With Lung Cancer Screening in Routine Clinical Practice : A Retrospective Cohort Study.Annals of internal medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Public-health communication should be more transparent.Nature human behaviour · 2023Article
- Questioning 'Informed Choice' in Medical Screening: The Role of Neoliberal Rhetoric, Culture, and Social Context.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Taxonomy of Non-honesty in Public Health Communication.Public health ethics · 2023Article
- Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Radiomics Features with Nomogram for Prediction of Prostate Cancer Invasion.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
- Presentation of benefits and harms in cancer screening guidelines for Koreans: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Harms Reporting in U.S. Cancer Screening Guidelines.Annals of internal medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancer prevention and screening guidelines are ideally suited to the task of providing high-quality benefit-harm information that informs clinical practice. We systematically examined how US guidelines present benefits and harms for recommended cancer prevention and screening interventions.
methodsWe included cancer screening and prevention recommendations from: 1) the United States Preventive Services Task Force, 2) the American Cancer Society, 3) the American College of Physicians, 4) the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and 5) other US guidelines within the National Guidelines Clearinghouse. Searches took place November 20, 2013, and January 1, 2014, and updates were reviewed through July 1, 2015. Two coders used an abstraction form to code information about benefits and harms presented anywhere within a guideline document, including appendices. The primary outcome was each recommendation's benefit-harm "comparability" rating, based on how benefits and harms were presented. Recommendations presenting absolute effects for both benefits and harms received a "comparable" rating. Other recommendations received an incomplete rating or an asymmetric rating based on prespecified criteria.
resultsFifty-five recommendations for using interventions to prevent or detect breast, prostate, colon, cervical, and lung cancer were identified among 32 guidelines. Thirty point nine percent (n = 17) received a comparable rating, 14.5% (n = 8) received an incomplete rating, and 54.5% (n = 30) received an asymmetric rating.
conclusionsSixty-nine percent of cancer prevention and screening recommendation statements either did not quantify benefits and harms or presented them in an asymmetric manner. Improved presentation of benefits and harms in guidelines would better ensure that clinicians and patients have access to the information required for making informed decisions.
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.