Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32716514›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Geographic Variation in Overscreening for Colorectal, Cervical, and Breast Cancer Among Older Adults.

Jennifer L Moss, Siddhartha Roy, Chan Shen, Joie D Cooper, Robert P Lennon, Eugene J Lengerich, Alan Adelman, William Curry, Mack T Ruffin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. The Impact of 4 Risk Communication Interventions on Cancer Screening Preferences and Knowledge.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Social Drivers of Guideline-Discordant Breast Cancer Screening by Age and Mortality Risk.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jennifer L MossPenn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Siddhartha RoyPenn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Chan ShenPenn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Joie D CooperPenn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Robert P LennonPenn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Eugene J LengerichPenn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Alan AdelmanPenn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
William CurryPenn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Mack T RuffinPenn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

Funding

Penn State Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR002014 · NCATS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV HERSHEY MED CTR · PI KRASCHNEWSKI, JENNIFER L. · 2016 to 2025
$33.7M
Overcoming barriers to cancer screening among women living in rural and segregated communitiesK22CA225705 · NCI · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV HERSHEY MED CTR · PI MOSS, JENNIFER LINDSAY · 2019 to 2022
$629k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002014NCI NIH HHS K22 CA225705
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: National guidelines balance risks and benefits of population-level cancer screening among adults with average risk. Older adults are not recommended to receive routine screening, but many continue to be screened (ie, are overscreened). Objective: To assess the prevalence of overscreening for colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers among older adults as well as differences in overscreening by metropolitan status. Design, Setting, and Participants: The cross-sectional study examined responses to a telephone survey of 176 348 community-dwelling adults. Participants were included if they met age and sex criteria, and they were excluded from each cancer-specific subsample if they had a history of that cancer. Data came from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, administered by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Exposures: Metropolitan status, according to whether participants lived in a metropolitan statistical area. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overscreening was assessed using US Preventive Services Task Force definitions, ie, whether participants self-reported having a screening after the recommended upper age limit for colorectal (75 years), cervical (65 years), or breast (74 years) cancer. Results: Of 176 348 participants (155 411 [88.1%] women; mean [SE] age, 75.0 [0.04] years; 150 871 [85.6%] non-Hispanic white; 60 456 [34.3%] with nonmetropolitan residence) the cancer-specific subsamples contained 20 937 [11.9%] men and 34 244 [19.4%] women for colorectal cancer, 82 811 [47.0%] women for cervical cancer, and 38 356 [21.8%] women for breast cancer. Overall, 9461 men (59.3%; 95% CI, 57.6%-61.1%) were overscreened for colorectal cancer; 14 463 women (56.2%; 95% CI, 54.7%-57.6%), for colorectal cancer; 31 988 women (45.8%; 95% CI, 44.9%-46.7%), for cervical cancer; and 26 198 women (74.1%; 95% CI, 73.0%-75.3%), for breast cancer. Overscreening was more common in metropolitan than nonmetropolitan areas for colorectal cancer among women (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.08-1.39), cervical cancer (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11-1.29), and breast cancer (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.17-1.57). Overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was also associated with having a usual source of care compared with not (eg, cervical cancer: aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.56-2.25; breast cancer: aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.58-2.76), good, very good, or excellent self-reported health compared with fair or poor self-reported health (eg, cervical cancer: aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.32; breast cancer: aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.28-1.69), an educational attainment greater than a high school diploma compared with a high school diploma or less (eg, cervical cancer: aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06-1.23; breast cancer: aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.46), and being married or living as married compared with other marital status (eg, cervical cancer: OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.26-1.46; breast cancer: OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.34-1.77). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, overscreening for cancer among older adults was high, particularly for women living in metropolitan areas. Overscreening could be associated with health care access and patient-clinician relationships. Additional research on why overscreening persists and how to reduce overscreening is needed to minimize risks associated with cancer screening among older adults.

Indexed as

Geographic MappingAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGeriatricsHumansMaleMass ScreeningMedical OveruseRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32716514
PMCPMC8127072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.