Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31386141›Full record

GuidelineJAMA2019

Screening for Pancreatic Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement.

US Preventive Services Task Force, Douglas K Owens, Karina W Davidson, Alex H Krist, Michael J Barry, Michael Cabana, Aaron B Caughey, Susan J Curry, Chyke A Doubeni, John W Epling and 8 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in JAMA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06638866 (Artificial Intelligence-based Health Information Management System and Key Technology Study of Early Screening and Hierarchical Diagnosis and Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 213 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
213citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
18.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT06638866 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Artificial Intelligence-based Health Information Management System and Key Technology Study of Early Screening and Hierarchical Diagnosis and Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorChanghai HospitalRan2024 to 2030Enrolled5,000ConditionsPancreatic Cancer, Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma, Pancreatic Intraepithelial Neoplasias, Intraductal Papillary Mucinous NeoplasmArmsPDAC, Pancreatic precursor lesions
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

213 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 373 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. High-Sensitivity ctDNA Analysis Uncovers Relevant Signals Missed by NGS in Pancreatic Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

153 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

US Preventive Services Task Force
Douglas K OwensVeterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California.
Karina W DavidsonFeinstein Institute for Medical Research at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York.
Alex H KristFairfax Family Practice Residency, Fairfax, Virginia.
Michael J BarryHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Michael CabanaUniversity of California, San Francisco.
Aaron B CaugheyOregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Susan J CurryUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City.
Chyke A DoubeniMayo Clinic, Rochester, New York.
John W EplingVirginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke.
Martha KubikTemple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
C Seth LandefeldUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham.
Carol M MangioneUniversity of California, Los Angeles.
Lori PbertUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester.
Michael SilversteinBoston University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Melissa A SimonNorthwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
Chien-Wen TsengUniversity of Hawaii, Honolulu.
John B WongTufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Harvard University · USNorthwell Health · USNorthwestern University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Iowa · USCarilion Clinic · USMayo Clinic · USOregon Health & Science University · USTufts University · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa · USUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · USVA Palo Alto Health Care System · US

Funding

Viral VectorP30CA086862 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Douglas Robert Spitz · 2000 to 2026
$70.0M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Pancreatic cancer is an uncommon cancer with an age-adjusted annual incidence of 12.9 cases per 100 000 person-years. However, the death rate is 11.0 deaths per 100 000 person-years because the prognosis of pancreatic cancer is poor. Although its incidence is low, pancreatic cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death in the United States. Because of the increasing incidence of pancreatic cancer, along with improvements in early detection and treatment of other types of cancer, it is estimated that pancreatic cancer may soon become the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Objective: To update the 2004 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for pancreatic cancer. Evidence Review: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for pancreatic cancer, the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for pancreatic cancer, and the benefits and harms of treatment of screen-detected or asymptomatic pancreatic cancer. Findings: The USPSTF found no evidence that screening for pancreatic cancer or treatment of screen-detected pancreatic cancer improves disease-specific morbidity or mortality, or all-cause mortality. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that the magnitude of the benefits of screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults can be bounded as no greater than small. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that the magnitude of the harms of screening for pancreatic cancer and treatment of screen-detected pancreatic cancer can be bounded as at least moderate. The USPSTF reaffirms its previous conclusion that the potential benefits of screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults do not outweigh the potential harms. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults. (D recommendation).

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalCost of IllnessEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningPancreasPancreatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID31386141
OpenAlexW2965010580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.