Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38238704›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2024

Cancer screening programs in South-east Asia and Western Pacific.

Hwee-Lin Wee, Karen Canfell, Han-Mo Chiu, Kui Son Choi, Brian Cox, Nirmala Bhoo-Pathy, Kate T Simms, Chisato Hamashima, Qianyu Shen, Brandon Chua and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Breast cancer prevention in the Western Pacific region.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

12 authors at 10 institutions in 10 countries.

Hwee-Lin WeeSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Karen CanfellThe Daffodil Centre, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW and the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Han-Mo ChiuDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Kui Son ChoiGraduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, Ilsandonggu, Goyang, Republic of Korea.
Brian CoxDunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Nirmala Bhoo-PathyCentre for Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Kate T SimmsThe Daffodil Centre, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW and the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Chisato HamashimaDivision of Cancer Screening Assessment and Management, Institute of Cancer Control, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Qianyu ShenSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Brandon ChuaSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Niyomsri SiwapornDepartment of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, National Cancer Institute of Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand.
Esther Toes-ZoutendijkSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. e.toes-zoutendijk@erasmusmc.nl.
National University of Singapore · SGCancer Council NSW · AUErasmus MC · NLMinistry of Public Health · THNational Cancer Center · KRNational Taiwan University · TWTeikyo University Hospital · JPUniversity of Malaya · MYUniversity of Otago · NZUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe burden of cancer can be altered by screening. The field of cancer screening is constantly evolving; from the initiation of program for new cancer types as well as exploring innovative screening strategies (e.g. new screening tests). The aim of this study was to perform a landscape analysis of existing cancer screening programs in South-East Asia and the Western Pacific.

methodsWe conducted an overview of cancer screening in the region with the goal of summarizing current designs of cancer screening programs. First, a selective narrative literature review was used as an exploration to identify countries with organized screening programs. Second, representatives of each country with an organized program were approached and asked to provide relevant information on the organizations of their national or regional cancer screening program.

resultsThere was wide variation in the screening strategies offered in the considered region with only eight programs identified as having an organized design. The majority of these programs did not meet all the essential criteria for being organized screening. The greatest variation was observed in the starting and stopping ages.

conclusionsEssential criteria of organized screening are missed. Improving organization is crucial to ensure that the beneficial effects of screening are achieved in the long-term. It is strongly recommended to consider a regional cancer screening network.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsAsia, EasternAsia, SoutheasternHumansOrganizationsBreast cancerCancer screeningCervical cancerColorectal cancerGastric cancerLung cancerOrganized screeningSouth-East AsiaWestern pacific

Identifiers

PMID38238704
PMCPMC10797973
OpenAlexW4390971992

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.