Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34930233›Full record

ReviewBMC medical informatics and decision making2021

Cancer screening simulation models: a state of the art review.

Aleksandr Bespalov, Anton Barchuk, Anssi Auvinen, Jaakko Nevalainen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A systematic review of microsimulation models for skin cancer.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Validation of an on-chip p16Scientific reports · 2023
    Article
  10. Observational
  11. 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

4 authors.

Aleksandr BespalovFaculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Arvo, Box 100, 33014, Tampere, Finland. aleksandr.bespalov@tuni.fi.ORCID 0000-0002-0926-8439
Anton BarchukFaculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Arvo, Box 100, 33014, Tampere, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-4629-3326
Anssi AuvinenFaculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Arvo, Box 100, 33014, Tampere, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-1125-4818
Jaakko NevalainenFaculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Arvo, Box 100, 33014, Tampere, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-6295-0245

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNowadays, various simulation approaches for evaluation and decision making in cancer screening can be found in the literature. This paper presents an overview of approaches used to assess screening programs for breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, and cervical cancers. Our main objectives are to describe methodological approaches and trends for different cancer sites and study populations, and to evaluate quality of cancer screening simulation studies.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The search time frame was limited to 1999-2018 and 7101 studies were found. Of them, 621 studies met inclusion criteria, and 587 full-texts were retrieved, with 300 of the studies chosen for analysis. Finally, 263 full texts were used in the analysis (37 were excluded during the analysis). A descriptive and trend analysis of models was performed using a checklist created for the study.

resultsCurrently, the most common methodological approaches in modeling cancer screening were individual-level Markov models (34% of the publications) and cohort-level Markov models (41%). The most commonly evaluated cancer types were breast (25%) and colorectal (24%) cancer. Studies on cervical cancer evaluated screening and vaccination (18%) or screening only (13%). Most studies have been conducted for North American (42%) and European (39%) populations. The number of studies with high quality scores increased over time.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that future directions for cancer screening modelling include individual-level Markov models complemented by screening trial data, and further effort in model validation and data openness.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsCohort StudiesHumansMaleMass ScreeningCancer screeningMicrosimulationModellingSystematic reviewTrends

Identifiers

PMID34930233
PMCPMC8690438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.