Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29413465›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet. Oncology2018

Population-based cancer screening programmes in low-income and middle-income countries: regional consultation of the International Cancer Screening Network in India.

Sudha Sivaram, Gautam Majumdar, Douglas Perin, Ashrafun Nessa, Mireille Broeders, Elsebeth Lynge, Mona Saraiya, Nereo Segnan, Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan, Preetha Rajaraman and 4 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet. Oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

14 authors.

Sudha SivaramPublic Health Research Branch, Center for Global Health, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA. Electronic address: sudha.sivaram@nih.gov.
Gautam MajumdarRegional Cancer Centre, Kunjaban, Agartala, Tripura, India.
Douglas PerinPublic Health Research Branch, Center for Global Health, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Ashrafun NessaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bangabandhu Sheikh, Mujib Medical University, Shahbag, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Mireille BroedersDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboudumc, and Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Elsebeth LyngeCenter of Epidemiology and Screening, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mona SaraiyaDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Nereo SegnanCenter for Epidemiology and Prevention in Oncology, CPO Piemonte, WHO Collaborative Center for Cancer Early Diagnosis and Screening, University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Rengaswamy SankaranarayananScreening Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France; RTI International-India, New Delhi, India.
Preetha RajaramanOffice of Global Affairs, US Department of Health and Human Services, US Embassy, New Delhi, India.
Edward TrimblePublic Health Research Branch, Center for Global Health, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Stephen TaplinPublic Health Research Branch, Center for Global Health, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
G K RathRotary Cancer Center, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, India.
Ravi MehrotraNational Institute of Cancer Prevention and Research, and WHO-Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Smokeless Tobacco Global Knowledge Hub, National Capital Region, India.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reductions in cancer morbidity and mortality afforded by population-based cancer screening programmes have led many low-income and middle-income countries to consider the implementation of national screening programmes in the public sector. Screening at the population level, when planned and organised, can greatly benefit the population, whilst disorganised screening can increase costs and reduce benefits. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) was created to share lessons, experience, and evidence regarding cancer screening in countries with organised screening programmes. Organised screening programmes provide screening to an identifiable target population and use multidisciplinary delivery teams, coordinated clinical oversight committees, and regular review by a multidisciplinary evaluation board to maximise benefit to the target population. In this Series paper, we report outcomes of the first regional consultation of the ICSN held in Agartala, India (Sept 5-7, 2016), which included discussions from cancer screening programmes from Denmark, the Netherlands, USA, and Bangladesh. We outline six essential elements of population-based cancer screening programmes, and share recommendations from the meeting that policy makers might want to consider before implementation.

Indexed as

International CooperationPovertyDenmarkEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIncomeIndiaMaleMass ScreeningNeeds AssessmentNeoplasmsNetherlandsPopulation SurveillanceProgram DevelopmentProgram Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID29413465
PMCPMC5835355

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.