Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28343835›Full record

ReviewSeminars in oncology nursing2017

Cancer Screening and Early Detection in the 21

Jennifer T Loud, Jeanne Murphy

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in oncology nursing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 146 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
146citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

146 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

86 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jennifer T Loud
Jeanne Murphy

Funding

Intervention Trials in Persons at Increased Genetic Risk of CancerZIACP010145 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI SAVAGE, SHARON A. · 2009 to 2025
$12.2M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo review the trends in and principles of cancer screening and early detection. DATA SOURCES: Journal articles, United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) publications, professional organization position statements, and evidence-based summaries.

conclusionCancer screening has contributed to decreasing the morbidity and mortality of cancer. Efforts to improve the selection of candidates for cancer screening, to understand the biological basis of carcinogenesis, and the development of new technologies for cancer screening will allow for improvements in cancer screening over time. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses are well-positioned to lead the implementation of cancer screening recommendations in the 21

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overEarly Detection of CancerEvidence-Based NursingFemaleForecastingHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeoplasmsNurse's RoleUnited Statescancer screeningdecision-makingearly detectionscreening recommendationssensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID28343835
PMCPMC5467686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.