SynthesisBMJ open2017
Do psychological harms result from being labelled with an unexpected diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm or prostate cancer through screening? A systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Psychological Impact of Screen-Detected Cancer: A Systematic Review.Psycho-oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Development of a Conceptual Map of Negative Consequences for Patients of Overuse of Medical Tests and Treatments.JAMA internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Perceptions of the usefulness of Choosing Wisely among general practitioners in Norway: a nationwide survey.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- [Geriatric ultrasound : Prospective evaluation of ultrasound as extended screening in acute geriatric patients].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2023Article
- Incidental Findings in Pediatric Patients: How to Manage Liver Incidentaloma in Pediatric Patients.Cancers · 2023Review
- Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in an academic family practice: Short-term impact of guideline changes.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2022Article
- Investigating the feasibility and ethical implications of phenotypic screening using stem cell-derived tissue models to detect and manage disease.Stem cell reports · 2022Review
- Short and long-term psychosocial consequences of participating in a colorectal cancer screening programme: a matched longitudinal study.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2022Article
- Risk-stratified strategies in population screening for colorectal cancer.International journal of cancer · 2022Review
- Pharmacy-Based Opportunistic Atrial Fibrillation Screening at a Community Level: A Real-Life Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Psychosocial consequences of screening-detected abdominal aortic aneurisms: a cross-sectional study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2021Article
- Making wise choices about low-value health care in the COVID-19 pandemic.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Consequences of health condition labelling: protocol for a systematic scoping review.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Patients' views about screening for atrial fibrillation (AF): a qualitative study in primary care.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Cochrane Sustainable Healthcare: evidence for action on too much medicine.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Harms of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance.Current hepatology reports · 2019Article
- Abdominal aortic aneurysm in prostate cancer patients: the "road map" from incidental detection to advanced predictive, preventive, and personalized approach utilizing common follow-up for both pathologies.The EPMA journal · 2019Article
- Media Coverage of the Benefits and Harms of Testing the Healthy: a protocol for a descriptive study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Overdiagnosis in primary care: framing the problem and finding solutions.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Review
- Analysis of clinical benefit, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening women for abdominal aortic aneurysm.Lancet (London, England) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA potential psychological harm of screening is unexpected diagnosis
designSystematic review with narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We searched the English language literature in PubMed, PsychINFO and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for research of any design published between 1 January 2002 and 23 January 2017 that provided valid data about the psychological state of people recently diagnosed with early stage PCa or AAA. Two authors independently used explicit criteria to review and critically appraise all studies for bias, applicability and the extent to which it provided evidence about the frequency and severity of harm from labelling.
results35 quantitative studies (30 of PCa and 5 of AAA) met our criteria, 17 (48.6%) of which showed possible or definite psychological harm from labelling. None of these studies, however, had either appropriate measures or relevant comparisons to estimate the frequency and severity of psychological harm. Four PCa and three AAA qualitative studies all showed clear evidence of at least moderate psychological harm from labelling. Seven population-based studies found increased suicide in patients recently diagnosed with PCa.
conclusionsAlthough qualitative and population-based studies show that at least moderate psychological harm due to screening for PCa and AAA does occur, the current quantitative evidence is insufficient to allow a more precise estimation of frequency and severity. More sensitive measures and improved research designs are needed to fully characterise this harm. In the meantime, clinicians and recommendation panels should be aware of the occurrence of this harm.
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.