ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2025
Acceptability of an organ inventory for cancer screening across gender identity and intersex status.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diversity, equity, and inclusion as scientific rigor: progress during challenging times.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the acceptability and performance of an organ inventory as an alternative to asking about gender and/or sex assigned at birth in cancer screening.
methodsWe fielded an online, self-administered survey to a convenience sample of English- or Spanish-speaking transgender and gender-diverse (TGD), intersex, and cisgender people (≥15 years) in the United States. The survey contained an organ inventory developed with community input and questions regarding acceptability. The primary outcome was organ inventory acceptability by the 4-item Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM). Additional outcomes included inter-method screening agreement between the organ inventory, gender, and sex assigned at birth.
resultsIn 2022, 333 eligible individuals completed the survey: 44.4% cisgender, 34.2% TGD, and 14.1% intersex. Overall, participants rated the organ inventory as acceptable (median AIM score = 18/20, IQR: 16-20). Most of them found it easy to understand (73%) and comfortable to complete (65%). Cancer screening eligibility varied based on the method used; relying solely on gender or sex data would have missed some eligible participants that the organ inventory identified.
conclusionsUsing an organ inventory as an alternative to gender- or sex-based screening questions was acceptable and has implications for addressing cancer screening disparities.
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.