Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30552485›Full record

ArticleDer Radiologe2019

[Image-based screening].

G Layer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Radiologe, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

G LayerZentralinstitut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Klinikum Ludwigshafen gGmbH, Bremserstraße 79, 67063, Ludwigshafen, Deutschland. layerg@klilu.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening is a special issue in medical questions concerning disease prevention. Preconditions for screening are clearly defined by the World Health Organization. High prevalence, effectiveness of therapy, availability of accepted test procedure and consensus concerning the economic concerns are necessary for successful implementation of a screening program. Preventive diagnostic studies can only be understood if one is familiar with the statistical terms sensitivity, specificity, prevalence, incidence and bias (especially overdiagnosis and lead time bias). Aspects of radiation protection are especially important in asymptomatic volunteers. The new radiation protection law in Germany also gives the opportunity to define new screening procedures even with use of radiation exposure in individual prevention programs. Potential diseases for radiological secondary prevention with high mortality are malignant tumors (especially breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer) and cardiovascular diseases (coronary heart disease, stroke or aortic aneurysm).

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsRadiologyGermanyHumansMass ScreeningEarly diagnosisPreventionRadiation protectionRadiologyStatistical parameters

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.