SynthesisJournal of the National Cancer Institute2023
Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing and validating key performance indicators for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programs: a literature review and Delphi survey.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Quality indicators for cervical screening in Sweden.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- Indicators to identify cancer screening providers with suboptimal case detection: A scoping review.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- The role of nursing in enhancing quality of life for lung cancer patients receiving targeted and immunotherapy: Challenges, opportunities, and future directions.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Review
- Automated Cervical Nuclei Segmentation in Pap Smear Images Using Enhanced Morphological Thresholding Techniques.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluating breast cancer screening performance without registries using medico-administrative data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Biennial Mammography Performance in the Korean National Cancer Screening Program From 2009 to 2020.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Cervical Cancer Classification From Pap Smear Images Using Deep Convolutional Neural Network Models.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2024Article
- Current and Future Perspectives on Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: A Roadmap From 2023 to 2027 From the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultiple quality metrics have been recommended to ensure consistent, high-quality execution of screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. However, minimal data exist evaluating the evidence base supporting these recommendations and the consistency of definitions and concepts included within and between cancer types.
methodsWe performed a systematic review for each cancer type using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from 2010 to April 2020 to identify guidelines from screening programs or professional organizations containing quality metrics for tests used in breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening. We abstracted metrics' definitions, target performance levels, and related supporting evidence for test completeness, adequacy (sufficient visualization or collection), accuracy, and safety.
resultsWe identified 11 relevant guidelines with 20 suggested quality metrics for breast cancer, 5 guidelines with 9 metrics for cervical cancer, 13 guidelines with 18 metrics for colorectal cancer (CRC), and 3 guidelines with 7 metrics for lung cancer. These included 54 metrics related to adequacy (n = 6), test completeness (n = 3), accuracy (n = 33), and safety (n = 12). Target performance levels were defined for 30 metrics (56%). Ten (19%) were supported by evidence, all from breast and CRC, with no evidence cited to support metrics from cervical and lung cancer screening.
conclusionsConsiderably more guideline-recommended test performance metrics exist for breast and CRC screening than cervical or lung cancer. The domains covered are inconsistent among cancers, and few targets are supported by evidence. Clearer evidence-based domains and targets are needed for test performance metrics. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020179139.
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.