ReviewBritish journal of cancer2023
Deceptive measures of progress in the NHS long-term plan for cancer: case-based vs. population-based measures.
Review in British journal of cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The PRAGMATIC pathway - PRostate cancer diAGnosis and MAnagement Triage In Clinical care.BJU international · 2026Article
- A Clinical Perspective on Melanoma Overdiagnosis.The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2025Review
- Challenges in colorectal cancer post-surgical surveillance: A critical evaluation and path forward.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- The development and applications of circulating tumour cells, circulating tumour DNA and other emerging biomarkers for early cancer detection.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2025Review
- Deceptive Measures of "Success" in Early Cancer Detection.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- Projecting the Impact of Multi-Cancer Early Detection on Late-Stage Incidence Using Multi-State Disease Modeling.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024Article
- Debunking myths about screening: How to screen more judiciously.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2023Article
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
The NHS Long Term Plan for cancer aims to increase early-stage diagnoses from 50% to 75% and to have 55,000 more people each year survive their cancer for at least 5 years following diagnosis. The targets measures are flawed and could be met without improving outcomes that really matter to patients. The proportion of early-stage diagnoses could increase, while the number of patients presenting at a late-stage remains the same. More patients could survive their cancer for longer, but lead time and overdiagnosis bias make it impossible to know whether anyone had their life prolonged. The target measures should switch from biased case-based measures to unbiased population-based measures that reflect the key objectives in cancer care: reducing late-stage incidence and mortality.
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.