ArticleChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu2020
Lead-time bias in esophageal cancer screening in high-risk areas in China.
Article in Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate what extent lead-time bias is likely to affect endoscopic screening effectiveness for esophageal cancer in the high-risk area in China.
methodsA screening model based on the epidemiological cancer registry data, yielding a population-level incidence and mortality rates, was carried out to simulate study participants in the high-risk area in China, and investigate the effect of lead-time bias on endoscopic screening with control for length bias.
resultsOf 100,000 participants, 6,150 (6.15%) were diagnosed with esophageal squamous dysplasia during the 20-year follow-up period. The estimated lead time ranged from 1.67 to 5.78 years, with a median time of 4.62 years [interquartile range (IQR): 4.07-5.11 years] in the high-risk area in China. Lead-time bias exaggerated screening effectiveness severely, causing more than a 10% overestimation in 5-year cause-specific survival rate and around a 43% reduction in cause-specific hazard ratio. The magnitude of lead-time bias on endoscopic screening for esophageal cancer varied depending on the screening strategies, in which an inverted U-shaped and U-shaped effects were observed in the 5-year cause-specific survival rate and cause-specific hazard ratio respectively concerning a range of ages for primary screening.
conclusionsLead-time bias, usually causing an overestimation of screening effectiveness, is an elementary and fundamental issue in cancer screening. Quantification and correction of lead-time bias are essential when evaluating the effectiveness of endoscopic screening in the high-risk area in China.
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.