ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2019
Observational Studies That Seek to Emulate a Randomized Trial of Screening to Reduce the Incidence of Cancer: Do They Address the Question to Which We'd Like to Have an Answer?
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Colorectal Cancer Incidence After Colonoscopy at Ages 45-49 or 50-54 Years.Gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Estimating the Effect of Preventive Services With Databases of Administrative Claims: Reasons to Be Concerned.American journal of epidemiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Some forms of cancer screening have the potential to reduce cancer incidence, if the screening modality can identify not only a malignancy but a treatable premalignant condition (such as a colon polyp) as well. Cohort studies of the efficacy of these forms of screening in reducing the incidence of cancer face many challenges, notably the difficulty in distinguishing whether a test performed in a given individual was screening or diagnostic in nature. Downward bias in the estimated efficacy of screening resulting from misclassification of test indication is a particular problem in cohort studies that seek to gauge cancer incidence beginning at the time of screening (and a corresponding point in time among unscreened persons). The downward bias is accentuated in those cohort studies that have sought to mimic the "intention-to-treat" analytical approach used in randomized trials, in which initially unscreened persons are retained in this category even if later they themselves undergo screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30608515What 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.