Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26917630›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the National Cancer Institute2016

Presentation of Benefits and Harms in US Cancer Screening and Prevention Guidelines: Systematic Review.

Tanner J Caverly, Rodney A Hayward, Elyse Reamer, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Daniel Connochie, Michele Heisler, Angela Fagerlin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. [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 · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Tanner J CaverlyVeterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI (TJC, RAH, MH, AF); Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School (TJC, RAH, ER, BJZF, MH, AF), Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine (TJC, BJZF, DC, AF), and Department of Health Behavior and Health Education (BJZF), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. tcaverly@med.umich.edu.
Rodney A HaywardVeterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI (TJC, RAH, MH, AF); Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School (TJC, RAH, ER, BJZF, MH, AF), Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine (TJC, BJZF, DC, AF), and Department of Health Behavior and Health Education (BJZF), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Elyse ReamerVeterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI (TJC, RAH, MH, AF); Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School (TJC, RAH, ER, BJZF, MH, AF), Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine (TJC, BJZF, DC, AF), and Department of Health Behavior and Health Education (BJZF), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Brian J Zikmund-FisherVeterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI (TJC, RAH, MH, AF); Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School (TJC, RAH, ER, BJZF, MH, AF), Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine (TJC, BJZF, DC, AF), and Department of Health Behavior and Health Education (BJZF), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Daniel ConnochieVeterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI (TJC, RAH, MH, AF); Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School (TJC, RAH, ER, BJZF, MH, AF), Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine (TJC, BJZF, DC, AF), and Department of Health Behavior and Health Education (BJZF), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Michele HeislerVeterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI (TJC, RAH, MH, AF); Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School (TJC, RAH, ER, BJZF, MH, AF), Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine (TJC, BJZF, DC, AF), and Department of Health Behavior and Health Education (BJZF), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Angela FagerlinVeterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI (TJC, RAH, MH, AF); Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School (TJC, RAH, ER, BJZF, MH, AF), Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine (TJC, BJZF, DC, AF), and Department of Health Behavior and Health Education (BJZF), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Funding

Research BaseP30DK092926 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MARY ELLEN MICHELE HEISLER, ADESUWA B OLOMU · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092926PHS HHS NIDDK P30DK092926
6 · The paper itself

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

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningDecision MakingHumansNeoplasmsPractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary PreventionUnited States

Identifiers

PMID26917630
PMCPMC5009951

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.