SynthesisPloS one2016
Integrated Cancer Screening Performance Indicators: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Developing and validating key performance indicators for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programs: a literature review and Delphi survey.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Economic Evaluation of Web- versus Telephone-based Interventions to Simultaneously Increase Colorectal and Breast Cancer Screening Among Women.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2021Trial
- Adherence to Screening Tests for Gynaecological and Colorectal Cancer in Patients with Diabetes in Spain: A Population-Based Study (2014-2020).Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Poor health literacy associated with stronger perceived barriers to breast cancer screening and overestimated breast cancer risk.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Development of artificial intelligence system for quality control of photo documentation in esophagogastroduodenoscopy.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of One-Stop Screening for Colorectal, Breast, and Prostate Cancers: A Population-Based Feasibility Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Feasibility of Brigade-Style, Multiphasic Cancer Screening in Rural Honduras.JCO global oncology · 2020Article
- AACR White Paper: Shaping the Future of Cancer Prevention - A Roadmap for Advancing Science and Public Health.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2018Article
- Enhancing access to cervical and colorectal cancer screening for women in rural and remote northern Alberta: a pilot study.CMAJ open · 2017Article
- Retrospective observation on contribution and limitations of screening for breast cancer with mammography in Korea: detection rate of breast cancer and incidence rate of interval cancer of the breast.BMC women's health · 2016Article
- Human Plasma Levels of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor, Matrix Metalloproteinase 9, and Tissue Inhibitor of Matrix Metalloproteinase 1 and Their Applicability as Tumor Markers in Diagnoses of Cervical Cancer Based on ROC Analysis.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer screening guidelines recommend that women over 50 years regularly be screened for breast, cervical and colorectal cancers. Population-based screening programs use performance indicators to monitor uptake for each type of cancer screening, but integrated measures of adherence across multiple screenings are rarely reported. Integrated measures of adherence that combine the three cancers cannot be inferred from measures of screening uptake of each cancer alone; nevertheless, they can help discern the proportion of women who, having received one or two types of screening, may be more amenable to receiving one additional screen, compared to those who haven't had any screening and may experience barriers to access screening such as distance, language, and so on. The focus of our search was to identify indicators of participation in the three cancers, therefore our search strategy included synonyms of integrated screening, cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening. Additionally, we limited our search to studies published between 2000 and 2015, written in English, and pertaining to females over 50 years of age. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, PubMed, PubMed Central, CINAHL, and Nursing Reference Center, as well as grey literature resources. Of the 78 initially retrieved articles, only 7 reported summary measures of screening across the three cancers. Overall, adherence to cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening ranged from around 8% to 43%. Our review confirms that reports of screening adherence across breast, cervical and colorectal cancers are rare. This is surprising, as integrated cancer screening measures can provide additional insight into the needs of the target population that can help craft strategies to improve adherence to all three screenings.
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.