ReviewBMC medical informatics and decision making2021
Cancer screening simulation models: a state of the art review.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health Economic Evaluations of Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Systematic Review Focusing on Methodology and Quality Assessment.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of microsimulation models for skin cancer.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Precision Thyroid Oncology: A Review of Multi-Omics Biomarkers and Spatiotemporal Technologies.International journal of general medicine · 2026Review
- Impact of excessive social media use on adolescent depression and its consequences in France: An individual-based microsimulation model.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- Navigating the evolving landscape of colorectal cancer screening with a practical framework: a comprehensive analysis of existing and emerging technologies for informed decision-making.Oncology reviews · 2025Review
- Evolution of digital twins in precision health applications: a scoping review study.Research square · 2024Article
- A systematic review of simulation methods applied to cancer care services.Health systems (Basingstoke, England) · 2024Review
- Adapting a model of cervical carcinogenesis to self-identified Black women to evaluate racial disparities in the United States.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2023Article
- Validation of an on-chip p16Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of a Simulation Model for Treatment to Maintain Remission in Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis.Arthritis care & research · 2023Observational
- Advancing the Evaluation of Risk-Stratified Colorectal Cancer Screening by Simulating Quantitative Fecal Hemoglobin Concentrations.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.