SynthesisEuropean journal of epidemiology2020
Assessment of cancer screening effectiveness in the era of screening programs.
Synthesis in European journal of epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing and validating key performance indicators for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programs: a literature review and Delphi survey.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Estimating lead time and overdiagnosis in cancer screening programmes: the MOCCI method.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Fecal Immunochemical Testing and the Risk of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia: A Difference-In-Difference Analysis.JCO global oncology · 2024Article
- Quantifying the potential benefits of early detection for pancreatic cancer through a counterfactual simulation modeling analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Will Absolute Risk Estimation for Time to Next Screen Work for an Asian Mammography Screening Population?Cancers · 2023Article
- Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in Anhui, China: A randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whilst the benefit of detecting and removing cancer precursors in the cervix and the large bowel is unequivocally documented, the balance between benefit and harm due to screening for early detection of breast and prostate cancer remains uncertain after 30-50 years of randomized control trials (RCTs). Concomitantly, traditional RCTs become increasingly unfeasible due to low compliance, contamination of control groups, difficulties to enroll screening naïve individuals, and prohibitively high costs. Therefore, we have systematically reviewed pros and cons with alternative study designs to quantify screening effectiveness. Whilst traditional RCTs should remain gold standard whenever feasible, observational cohort and case-control studies are unlikely to provide the valid evidence needed for health policy decisions. Instead, we advocate two methodological approaches that are novel in assessment of cancer screening effectiveness. One-the difference-in-difference design, well established in health policy and public health research-has a sophisticated ecologic design which unfortunately is feasible only in few countries. Another implies that sequential RCTs become embedded whenever population-based screening programs are implemented.
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.