SynthesisBMC cancer2022
Patient-reported outcomes associated with cancer screening: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06931561 (Occupational Cancer Screening in Firefighters), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 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.
Occupational Cancer Screening in Firefighters: A Pilot Study Within the Inova Health System
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Psychological Impact of Screen-Detected Cancer: A Systematic Review.Psycho-oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors influencing the commissioning, delivery, and uptake of general health checks: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of high-protein supplementation during cancer therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Cardiovascular training versus resistance training for fatigue in people with cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Performance and safety of a multi-cancer early detection test: the PATHFINDER 2 study.Nature medicine · 2026Trial
- Rebuttal to "Early Warnings About the Galleri Test Were Disregarded".Clinical proteomics · 2026Article
- Impact of anal precancer screening on patient-reported outcomes among men-who-have-sex-with-men living with HIV: a scoping review.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2026Article
- Five-year psychological impact and surveillance compliance in the Australian Pancreatic Cancer Screening Program.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- Primary care stakeholder perspectives on clinical implementation of patient-reported hereditary cancer risk-assessment.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Patient, community, and clinician beliefs about multi-cancer detection tests: implications for the evidence needed to recommend routine use.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Multicancer Detection Assays: Promise and Potential Harms of a Novel Cancer Screening Tool.The Permanente journal · 2026Article
- Multidimensional Informational Needs and Associated Factors Among Indonesian Women with Breast Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Concurrent depression and anxiety in women undergoing additional diagnostic procedures due to positive screening for cervical cancer.PloS one · 2026Observational
- Resolving Clinically Indeterminate Findings During Anal Cancer Surveillance with TTMV-HPV DNA.Cancers · 2025Article
- Promises and pitfalls of multi-cancer early detection using liquid biopsy tests.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Gender differences between dyadic coping and emotional distress in young and middle-aged cancer patients and spouses.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Patients' experiences of, and psychological responses to, surveillance for pulmonary nodules detected through lung cancer screening.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Discussing the potential consequences of a diagnostic label before routine non-cancer screening: qualitative study with general practitioners and consumers.BJPsych open · 2025Article
- Finding Consensus on Trust in AI in Health Care: Recommendations From a Panel of International Experts.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Effect of group music therapy on state-anxiety and well-being levels of oncology patients undergoing chemotherapy: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
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
backgroundMulti-cancer early detection tests have been developed to enable earlier detection of multiple cancer types through screening. As reflected by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the psychosocial impact of cancer screening is not yet clear. Our aim is to evaluate the impact of cancer screening through PRO assessment.
methodsA systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and reference lists of articles from January 2000 to August 2020 for relevant publications assessing the psychosocial impact of cancer screening before and within 1 year after screening in the general asymptomatic population, including following receipt of results. Studies focused on diagnostic evaluation or involving patients previously diagnosed with cancer were excluded.
resultsIn total, 31 studies (12 randomized controlled trials; 19 observational studies) were included, reflecting PRO assessments associated with lung, breast, colorectal, anal, ovarian, cervical, and prostate cancer screening procedures. The most commonly assessed construct was symptoms of anxiety, using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Cancer-specific distress and worry were also assessed using a broad range of measures. Overall, individuals tolerated screening procedures well with no major psychosocial effects. Of note, increases in symptoms of anxiety and levels of distress and worry were generally found prior to communication of screening results and following communication of indeterminate or positive results that required further testing. These negative psychosocial effects were, however, not long-lasting and returned to baseline relatively soon after screening. Furthermore, individuals with higher cancer risk, such as current smokers and those with a family history of cancer, tended to have higher levels of anxiety and distress throughout the screening process, including following negative or indeterminate results.
conclusionsThe psychosocial impact of cancer screening is relatively low overall and short-lived, even following false-positive test results. Individuals with a higher risk of cancer tend to experience more symptoms of anxiety and distress during the screening process; thus, more attention to this group is recommended.
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.