Observational studyJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2016
Comparing Prognostic Tools for Cancer Screening: Considerations for Clinical Practice and Performance Assessment.
Observational study in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variation in Receipt of Cancer Screening and Immunizations by 10-year Life Expectancy among U.S. Adults aged 65 or Older in 2019.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- Estimating life expectancy adjusted by self-rated health status in the United States: national health interview survey linked to the mortality.BMC public health · 2022Article
- National profile of the growing population of older adults who access community health centers.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2021Article
- Unrelated Death After Colorectal Cancer Screening: Implications for Improving Colonoscopy Referrals.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2019Article
- Article
- Cancer Screening of Older Adults in Israel According to Life Expectancy: Cross Sectional Study.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2017Article
- Predicting Mortality up to 14 Years Among Community-Dwelling Adults Aged 65 and Older.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the agreement and rates of cancer screening using four prognostic tools that require different types of clinical information.
designObservational retrospective cohort study.
setting2009 and 2010 waves of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey.
participantsAdults aged 66-90 with survey and claims data (N = 9,469). MEASUREMENTS: Agreement between four indices predicting short-term (4-5 years) and long-term (9-10 years) survival; self-reported breast and prostate cancer screening.
resultsAgreement between the four prognostic tools was high. Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from 0.63 to 0.90 for short-term survival and 0.68 to 0.94 for long-term survival. When defining limited short-term life expectancy as less than 25% chance of surviving 4 or 5 years, all four tools agreed in 96.4% of the sample. All four tools agreed in their placement of participants into limited or not-limited long-term life expectancy in 77.1% of participants (<25% chance of surviving 9 or 10 years). Rates of cancer screening were similarly high in individuals with limited long-term life expectancy regardless of the tool used: greater than 31% for mammographic screening in women and greater than 69% for prostate cancer screening.
conclusionThere is substantial agreement among different prognostic tools for short- and long-term survival in Medicare beneficiaries. The high rates of cancer screening of individuals with limited life expectancy suggest the importance of incorporating tools into clinical decision-making.
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.