Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29450531›Full record

GuidelineJAMA2018

Screening for Ovarian Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

US Preventive Services Task Force, David C Grossman, Susan J Curry, Douglas K Owens, Michael J Barry, Karina W Davidson, Chyke A Doubeni, John W Epling, Alex R Kemper, Alex H Krist and 7 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in JAMA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07503054 (AI on Ovarian Cancer Screening Attitudes in Gynecologists), which is not on this map. Cited by 129 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
129citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
35.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT07503054 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

AI on Ovarian Cancer Screening Attitudes in Gynecologists

TypeinterventionalSponsorCharite University, Berlin, GermanyRan2026 to 2026Enrolled350ConditionsOvarian Cancer Screening Recommendations by GynecologistsArmsChatGPT - Control, ChatGPT - Evidence-Based Screening Discussion
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

129 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 275 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Atencion primaria · 2018
    Guideline
  4. Estimating the Opportunity for Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer Using Individual-Patient Data from a Large Randomized Controlled Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Privately paid, direct-to-consumer diagnostic testing: let the buyer beware.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.

US Preventive Services Task Force
David C GrossmanKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle.
Susan J CurryUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City.
Douglas K OwensVeterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California.
Michael J BarryHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Karina W DavidsonColumbia University, New York, New York.
Chyke A DoubeniUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
John W EplingVirginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke.
Alex R KemperNationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
Alex H KristFairfax Family Practice Residency, Fairfax, Virginia.
Ann E KurthYale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
C Seth LandefeldUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham.
Carol M MangioneUniversity of California, Los Angeles.
Maureen G PhippsBrown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Michael SilversteinBoston University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Melissa A SimonNorthwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
Chien-Wen TsengUniversity of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Harvard University · USNationwide Children's Hospital · USNorthwestern University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Iowa · USBrown University · USCarilion Clinic · USColumbia University · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa · USVirginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

Viral VectorP30CA086862 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Douglas Robert Spitz · 2000 to 2026
$70.0M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: With approximately 14 000 deaths per year, ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer death among US women and the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer. More than 95% of ovarian cancer deaths occur among women 45 years and older. Objective: To update the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for ovarian cancer. Evidence Review: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women not known to be at high risk for ovarian cancer (ie, high risk includes women with certain hereditary cancer syndromes that increase their risk for ovarian cancer). Outcomes of interest included ovarian cancer mortality, quality of life, false-positive rate, surgery and surgical complication rates, and psychological effects of screening. Findings: The USPSTF found adequate evidence that screening for ovarian cancer does not reduce ovarian cancer mortality. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that the harms from screening for ovarian cancer are at least moderate and may be substantial in some cases, and include unnecessary surgery for women who do not have cancer. Given the lack of mortality benefit of screening, and the moderate to substantial harms that could result from false-positive screening test results and subsequent surgery, the USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the harms of screening for ovarian cancer outweigh the benefit, and the net balance of the benefit and harms of screening is negative. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against screening for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women. (D recommendation) This recommendation applies to asymptomatic women who are not known to have a high-risk hereditary cancer syndrome.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningAsymptomatic DiseasesFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansOvarian NeoplasmsQuality of LifeRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID29450531
OpenAlexW2910453686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.