Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30608515›Full record

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?

Noel S Weiss

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Noel S WeissDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Funding

Effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in average risk adults: Colonoscopy vs. FITR01CA213645 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI CORLEY, DOUGLAS ALLEN, DOUBENI, CHYKE ABADAMA · 2017 to 2021
$3.2M
6 · The paper itself

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

Early Detection of CancerObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBiasHumansIncidenceIntention to Treat AnalysisNeoplasmscancer screeningcohort studies

Identifiers

PMID30608515

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.