ArticleMedicine2016
Spatial and temporal variations of screening for breast and colorectal cancer in the United States, 2008 to 2012.
Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rural-Urban and Appalachian Disparities in Geographic Access to Colonoscopy and Screening Prevalence Across the Contiguous US.Preventing chronic disease · 2026Article
- Differences and similarities in breast and colorectal screening participation: a spatial and temporal analysis to reveal intervention areas, France.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Geographic and Temporal Patterns of Screening for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the US, 1997-2019.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Geographical and spatial variations in bowel cancer screening participation, Australia, 2015-2020.PloS one · 2023Article
- Differences in Breast Cancer Screening Practices by Diabetes Status and Race/Ethnicity in the United States.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2022Article
- Trends in the Impact of Medicaid Expansion on the Use of Clinical Preventive Services.American journal of preventive medicine · 2022Article
- Using big data to gauge effectiveness of breast cancer awareness month.Preventive medicine · 2021Article
- Spatial Insights for Understanding Colorectal Cancer Screening in Disproportionately Affected Populations, Central Texas, 2019.Preventing chronic disease · 2021Article
- Article
- Factors associated with mammography use: A side-by-side comparison of results from two national surveys.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- Bivariate Spatial Pattern between Smoking Prevalence and Lung Cancer Screening in US Counties.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Mapping Variation in Breast Cancer Screening: Where to Intervene?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Assessing and Explaining Geographic Variations in Mammography Screening Participation and Breast Cancer Incidence.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Article
- Multilevel Regression for Small-Area Estimation of Mammography Use in the United States, 2014.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2019Article
- Spatially varying effects of predictors for the survival prediction of nonmetastatic colorectal Cancer.BMC cancer · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer screening tests are important tools to combat cancer-related morbidity and mortality. There is limited up-to-date research on spatial and temporal variations of colorectal and breast cancer screening in the United States.County-level data of cancer screening adherence rates were generated from 2008 to 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We performed the univariate local indicators for spatial analyses (LISA) for the geographic differences of screening adherence rate and the differential LISA for the change of screening adherence rate from 2008 to 2012.In the univariate LISA, low-to-low clusters were consistently identified in counties of New Mexico, Wyoming, and Mississippi (P < 0.05) for both screenings. In the differential LISA, we found low-to-low clusters in Indiana counties (P < 0.05) for mammography screening, which implied that counties with a below-average difference in mammography adherence were surrounded by counties of below-average difference in adherence rates. A high-to-high cluster was also identified in the southern Appalachian counties for mammography screening (P < 0.05). No obvious spatial pattern was found for the colorectal cancer screening adherence rate across the United States.We found low-to-low clusters over time in adherence to screening guidelines for both cancer types in New Mexico, Wyoming, and Mississippi, and clusters of potential decrease in adherence to mammography screening guideline in counties of Indiana. The study also showed improvement on mammography screening clustered in southern Appalachia. The methodology adopted in this study identified areas with clusters of consistent low adherence to screening and a decrease in adherence, which implies that further research and intervention is warranted.
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.