Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37174272›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

A Systematic Review on Reporting of Methods in National Surveys about Adults' Attitudes to Lifestyle and Environmental Risk Factors for Cancer.

Stéphane Faury, Philémon Aurouet, Bruno Quintard, Jérôme Foucaud

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Stéphane FauryInstitut National du Cancer (INCa), Research in Social & Human Sciences, Public Health and Epidemiology Department, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Philémon AurouetInstitut National du Cancer (INCa), Research in Social & Human Sciences, Public Health and Epidemiology Department, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Bruno QuintardLaboratory of Psychology EA 4139, 33405 Bordeaux, France.
Jérôme FoucaudInstitut National du Cancer (INCa), Research in Social & Human Sciences, Public Health and Epidemiology Department, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9246-7721

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The risks of developing cancer are significantly affected by our lifestyle and environment. While there are several uncontrollable risk factors, we can modify our lifestyle and our environment to reduce the increased threat of cancer. This systematic review aims to evaluate the methodological assessment used to evaluate attitudes about cancer risk factors among the general population. Two researchers independently screened the articles for inclusion and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists were used to assess the methodology of the included studies. Thirty-one manuscripts met the inclusion criteria with a majority of them focusing on attitudes to several cancer risk factors and six on specific cancer location risk factors. This systematic review highlights the diversity of notions used around attitudes and methods used in the method of administering the survey, as well as the format of the questions and the response scales. It is thus difficult to compare data between different countries. However, cancer is a global problem. Harmonizing methods could allow a comparison of data between countries. Recommendations to this effect are suggested.

Indexed as

AttitudeNeoplasmsAdultHumansLife StyleRisk Factorsattitudecancerrisk factorsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37174272
PMCPMC10177829

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.