SynthesisPloS one2019
Disutility associated with cancer screening programs: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Screening for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer: systematic reviews to inform an update to recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Patient preferences for breast cancer screening: a systematic review update to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Quality appraisal for systematic literature reviews of health state utility values: a descriptive analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- A Systematic Literature Review of Health Utility Values in Breast Cancer.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Pooled it
- Health state utility values by cancer stage: a systematic literature review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of organised versus opportunistic mammography breast cancer screening in low-resourced country.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Exploring the potential cost-effectiveness and societal burden implications of screening for fracture risk in a UK general radiography setting.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Comparing the cost-benefit of breast cancer screening programs in rural and urban areas across four economic zones in China: a Markov modeling analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of AI for Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Quality Appraisal in Systematic Literature Reviews of Studies Eliciting Health State Utility Values: Conceptual Considerations.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Article
- Health State Utilities Associated with False-Positive Cancer Screening Results.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2024Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of School Urinary Screening for Early Detection of IgA Nephropathy in Japan.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Diagnostic performance of the adrenal vein to inferior vena cava aldosterone ratio in classifying the subtype of primary aldosteronism.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2023Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of PET/CT Surveillance Schedules to Detect Distant Recurrence of Resected Stage III Melanoma.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Optimizing Benefits-Harms of H. pylori Screen-and-Treat Programs Tailored to the Regional Settings.HelicobacterReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDisutility allows to identify how much population values intervention-related harms contributing to knowledge on the benefits/harms ratio of cancer screening programs. This systematic review evaluates disutility related to cancer screening applying a utility theory framework.
methodsUsing a predefined protocol, Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane, Google scholar and supplementary sources were systematically searched. The framework grouped disutilities associated with breast, cervical, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening programs into the screening, diagnostic work up, and treatment phases. We assessed the quality of included studies according to the relevance to target population, risk of bias, appropriateness of measure and the time frame.
resultsOut of 2840 hits, we included 38 studies, of which 27 measured (and others estimated) disutilities. Around 70% of studies had medium to high-level quality. Measured disutilities and Quality Adjusted Life Years loss were 0-0.03 and 0-0.0013 respectively in screening phases. Both disutilities and Quality Adjusted Life Years loss had similar ranges in diagnostic work up (0-0.26), and treatment (0.09-0.27) phases. We found no measured disutilities available for lung cancer screening and-little evidence for disutilities in treatment phase. Almost 40% of the estimated disutility values were above the range of measured ones.
conclusionsCancer screening programs led to low disutities related to screening phase, and low to moderate disutilities related to diagnostic work up and treatment phases. These disutility values varied by the measurement instrument applied, and were higher in studies with lower quality. The estimated disutility values comparing to the measured ones tended to overestimate the harms.
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.