SynthesisCA: a cancer journal for clinicians2018
Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium.
Synthesis in CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 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
68 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.
- Failure to follow up abnormal test results associated with cervical cancer in primary and ambulatory care: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Global guidelines for breast cancer screening: A systematic review.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2022Pooled it
- Patient Perceptions on the Follow-Up of Abnormal Cancer Screening Test Results.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Trial
- Centralized Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Why Women Don't Return: Nurse Perspectives on Follow-Up Care After Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results in Mississippi's Public Health System.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Delayed treatment initiation is associated with worse survival in screening-detected patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer in rural China: a 10-year cohort study.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Nationwide Study on the Cervical Cancer Screening Pathway in Estonia.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Socioeconomic variation in adherence to follow-up after an abnormal screening mammogram in the Danish breast cancer screening program.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Risk Factors Associated with Delayed Breast Cancer Diagnoses: What Are We Missing?Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Supporting breast and cervical cancer screening follow-up: qualitative health plan interviews.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Impact of commune level social inequalities on time to diagnosis and follow-up in women with high-grade cervical lesions in Isère, France: Evidence from the French cervical cancer screening program.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Management of suspicious nodules in lung cancer screening - a narrative review of monitoring strategies based on nodule features and further needs.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Bringing Cervical Cancer Screening Closer to Women: Feasibility of Artificial Intelligence and Remote Assessment in Primary Health Care.International journal of public health · 2026Article
- Untimely follow-up after cervical cancer screening: A qualitative study among healthcare providers in Flanders (Belgium).PloS one · 2026Article
- Gaps in care across the cancer screening continuum for cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Article
- Follow-Up After Receiving Abnormal Results From Self-Sampled Colorectal and Cervical Cancer Screening Tests Among Underserved Patients.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening Cascade: A Framework for Monitoring Uptake and Retention Along the Screening and Treatment Pathway.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- Risk assessment in a Chinese cohort of 96 318 females undergoing opportunistic cervical cancer screening.The oncologist · 2025Article
- The development and application of a novel precise health management model for pulmonary nodules population: a prospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
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.