ArticleSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina
What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about the clinical effectiveness of screening and diagnostic tests for cancer?
Article in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Theory-based training to promote breast cancer screening among women with breast cancer worries: randomized controlled trial.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2020Trial
- [Indications regarding early detection screening for genital tract neoplasms].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- An examination of variables associated with breast cancer early detection behaviors of women.African health sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CONTEXT AND
objective: The purpose of screening tests for cancer is to detect it at an early stage in order to increase the chances of treatment. However, their unrestrained use may lead to unnecessary examinations, overdiagnosis and higher costs. It is thus necessary to evaluate their clinical effects in terms of benefits and harm. DESIGN AND
setting: Review of Cochrane systematic reviews, carried out in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo.
methods: Cochrane reviews on the clinical effectiveness of cancer screening procedures were included. Study titles and abstracts were independently assessed by two authors. Conflicts were resolved by another two authors. Findings were summarized and discussed.
results: Seventeen reviews were selected: fifteen on screening for specific cancers (bladder, breast, colorectal, hepatic, lung, nasopharyngeal, esophageal, oral, prostate, testicular and uterine) and two others on cancer in general. The quality of evidence of the findings varied among the reviews. Only two reviews resulted in high-quality evidence: screening using low-dose computed tomography scans for high-risk individuals seems to reduce lung cancer mortality; and screening using flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood tests seems to reduce colorectal cancer mortality.
conclusion: The evidence found through Cochrane reviews did not support most of the commonly used screening tests for cancer. It is recommended that patients should be informed of the possibilities of false positives and false negatives before they undergo the tests. Further studies to fully assess the effectiveness of cancer screening tests and adverse outcomes are required.
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.