ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2020
Evaluating Screening Participation, Follow-up, and Outcomes for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the PROSPR Consortium.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 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
45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Pooled it
- Factors associated with attendance at screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Cervical Cancer Screening Knowledge, Perceptions, and Behaviors in a Multiracial Cohort of Low-Income, Underscreened Women in North Carolina.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2023Trial
- Effect of HPV self-collection kits on cervical cancer screening uptake among under-screened women from low-income US backgrounds (MBMT-3): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial.The Lancet. Public health · 2023Trial
- Primary Care Practitioner Perceptions on the Follow-up of Abnormal Cancer Screening Test Results.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Implementation of Risk Prediction Models Using Electronic Health Data for Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: A Prospective Pilot Feasibility Study.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Association Between E-Health Literacy and OGTT Status at Study Enrollment Among Pregnant Women.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Heuriskance: a novel paradigm for systematic earlier detection of sporadic pancreatic cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Decoding cancer circulating transcriptomic signatures with language models.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Article
- Supporting breast and cervical cancer screening follow-up: qualitative health plan interviews.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Adherence to Screening for Colorectal, Cervical, and Lung Cancer in a US Consortium.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Developing patient-centered educational material to improve colposcopy adherence.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2026Article
- Public health impact of increasing human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical cancer screening.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Development of an HPV 16 rapid test founded in user-centered design with primary care clinicians.Analytical methods : advancing methods and applications · 2026Article
- Gaps in care across the cancer screening continuum for cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Lifestyle Habits and Adherence to Cancer Screening Programs Among Italian Teachers: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Early cancer detection: Analysis of a comprehensive screening program in a private clinic in Peru.Journal of public health research · 2025Article
- Association between cancer screenings uptake and genetic testing for cancer risk among US adults: findings from HINTS 2017-2020.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
29 authors at 16 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancer screening is a complex process encompassing risk assessment, the initial screening examination, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of cancer precursors or early cancers. Metrics that enable comparisons across different screening targets are needed. We present population-based screening metrics for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers for nine sites participating in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium.
methodsWe describe how selected metrics map to a trans-organ conceptual model of the screening process. For each cancer type, we calculated calendar year 2013 metrics for the screen-eligible target population (breast: ages 40-74 years; cervical: ages 21-64 years; colorectal: ages 50-75 years). Metrics for screening participation, timely diagnostic evaluation, and diagnosed cancers in the screened and total populations are presented for the total eligible population and stratified by age group and cancer type.
resultsThe overall screening-eligible populations in 2013 were 305 568 participants for breast, 3 160 128 for cervical, and 2 363 922 for colorectal cancer screening. Being up-to-date for testing was common for all three cancer types: breast (63.5%), cervical (84.6%), and colorectal (77.5%). The percentage of abnormal screens ranged from 10.7% for breast, 4.4% for cervical, and 4.5% for colorectal cancer screening. Abnormal breast screens were followed up diagnostically in almost all (96.8%) cases, and cervical and colorectal were similar (76.2% and 76.3%, respectively). Cancer rates per 1000 screens were 5.66, 0.17, and 1.46 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively.
conclusionsComprehensive assessment of metrics by the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium enabled systematic identification of screening process steps in need of improvement. We encourage widespread use of common metrics to allow interventions to be tested across cancer types and health-care settings.
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.