SynthesisPloS one2022
Interventions for cancer screening among Chinese Americans: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sociodemographic Correlates of Cancer-Related Beliefs Among Chinese Speaking Adults in Greater Philadelphia.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Article
- Deconstructing the Monolith: An Educational Module for Understanding Disparities Within Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Populations.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer is the leading cause of death among Chinese Americans (CAs). Although death rates of cancers can be significantly reduced by screening cancers at an early stage, cancer screening (CS) rates are low among CAs. Interventions on CS may increase the uptake rates of CS and help to decrease the death rates of cancers in CAs.
objectivesThis study aims to summarize the intervention methods on CS among CAs and compare effects of various intervention methods on the outcomes of CS, including knowledge levels of CS, intentions to complete CS, and actual completions of CS.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis design was used. Keyword searching was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The PEDro scale was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Data was analyzed using Review Manager Version 5.4 software. Random effect model and subgroup analyses were conducted.
resultsThe search yielded 13 eligible studies. All of the reviewed interventions were culturally tailored. Systematic review results were categorized by intervention delivery objects, intervention led, intervention contact, intervention types, and intervention focus according to group consensus. Meta-analysis results showed that the interventions on CS had a positive effect on all outcomes, including a 1.58 (95% CI, 1.17-2.14; P = 0.003), 1.78 (95% CI, 1.27-2.48; P = 0.0007), and 1.72 (95% CI, 1.22-2.42; P = 0.002) effect on knowledge of CS, intentions to complete CS, and completions of CS, respectively, compared to the control group. The subgroup analysis suggested that physician-led, individual-based, face-to-face client-focused interventions with multiple components increased CS among CAs, with the OR ranging from 1.60 (95% CI, 1.08-2.39; P = 0.02) to 3.11 (95%CI, 1.02-9.49; P = 0.05). DISCUSSION: Interventions on CS significantly increased CAs' knowledge of CS, intentions to complete CS, and completions of CS. Physician-led, individual-based, face-to-face client-focused interventions with multiple components should be utilized for CAs.
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.