Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35317783›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2022

An international consensus on the essential and desirable criteria for an 'organized' cancer screening programme.

Li Zhang, André L Carvalho, Isabel Mosquera, Tianmeng Wen, Eric Lucas, Catherine Sauvaget, Richard Muwonge, Marc Arbyn, Elisabete Weiderpass, Partha Basu

Abstract readSystematic ReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Li ZhangInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
André L CarvalhoInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Isabel MosqueraInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Tianmeng WenNational Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Eric LucasInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Catherine SauvagetInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Richard MuwongeInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Marc ArbynUnit of Cancer Epidemiology, Belgian Cancer Centre, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Elisabete WeiderpassInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Partha BasuInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France. basup@iarc.fr.ORCID 0000-0003-0124-4050

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh variability in the definition and interpretation of organized cancer screening needs to be addressed systematically. Moreover, the relevance of the current practice of categorizing screening programmes dichotomously into organized or non-organized needs to be revisited in the context of considerable heterogeneity that exists in the delivery of cancer screening in the real world. We aimed to identify the essential and desirable criteria for organized cancer screening that serve as a charter of best practices in cancer screening.

methodsWe first did a systematic review of literature to arrive at an exhaustive list of criteria used by various publications to describe or define organized cancer screening, based on which, a consolidated list of criteria was generated. Next, we used a Delphi process comprising of two rounds of online surveys to seek agreement of experts to categorize each criterion into essential, desirable, or neither. Consensus was considered to have been achieved based on a predetermined criterion of agreement from at least 80% of the experts. The outcomes were presented before the experts in a virtual meeting for feedbacks and clarifications.

resultsA total of 32 consolidated criteria for an organized screening programme were identified and presented to 24 experts from 20 countries to select the essential criteria in the Delphi first round. Total 16 criteria were selected as essential with the topmost criteria (based on the agreement of 96% of experts) being the availability of a protocol/guideline describing at least the target population, screening intervals, screening tests, referral pathway, management of positive cases and a system being in place to identify the eligible populations. In the second round of Delphi, the experts selected eight desirable criteria out of the rest 16. The most agreed upon desirable criterion was existence of a specified organization or a team responsible for programme implementation and/or coordination.

conclusionsWe established an international consensus on essential and desirable criteria, which screening programmes would aspire to fulfil to be better-organized. The harmonized criteria are a ready-to-use guide for programme managers and policymakers to prioritize interventions and resources rather than supporting the dichotomous and simplistic approach of categorizing programmes as organized or non-organized.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsDelphi TechniqueHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesConsensusDelphiDesirable criteriaEssential criteriaOrganized cancer screening programme

Identifiers

PMID35317783
PMCPMC8941752

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.