ArticleNature reviews. Clinical oncology2016
Screening: A risk-based framework to decide who benefits from screening.
Article in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association of Endometrial Cancer Risk With Postmenopausal Bleeding in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
- A prioritization framework for large-scale cancer screening under resource constraints: three 'not all' principles.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating the Use of Environmental and Polygenic Risk Scores to Inform Colorectal Cancer Risk-Based Surveillance Intervals.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Review
- The Development and Performance of Alternative Criteria for Lung Cancer Screening.Annals of internal medicine · 2024Article
- Public Preferences for Determining Eligibility for Screening in Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening Programs: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023Article
- Article
- A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Management of Lung Cancer Screening Results Based on Individual Prediction of Current and Future Lung Cancer Risks.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Article
- Toward a Population-Based Breast Cancer Risk Stratification Approach? The Needs and Concerns of Healthcare Providers.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Quantifying risk stratification provided by diagnostic tests and risk predictions: Comparison to AUC and decision curve analysis.Statistics in medicine · 2019Article
- A novel metric that quantifies risk stratification for evaluating diagnostic tests: The example of evaluating cervical-cancer screening tests across populations.Preventive medicine · 2018Article
- Clinician Perceptions on Using Decision Tools to Support Prediction-Based Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.