ArticleBMJ oncology2024
Assessing the rates of false-positive ovarian cancer screenings and surgical interventions associated with screening tools: a systematic review.
Article in BMJ oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Circulating Tumor DNA in Ovarian Cancer: Emerging Roles in Early Detection, Risk Stratification, and Disease Monitoring.Cancers · 2026Review
- Ovarian cancer.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2026Review
- Exploring public preferences and demand for ovarian cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Early detection of ovarian cancer can improve patient outcomes; however, screening tests can yield false-positive results, leading to unnecessary surgical interventions. This systematic review explores the prevalence of false-positive ovarian cancer screenings and subsequent unnecessary surgical interventions. Methods and analysis: Five databases were searched in March 2023 and again in March 2024, encompassing primary literature published between 2003 and 2024. Data collection focused on studies reporting the number of surgical interventions resulting from a false-positive screening result. Studies were categorized by patient risk (average vs high). Studies lacking screening or surgical intervention data, those in which the screening did not directly influence surgical decisions, or those not in English were excluded. Results: Of the 12 papers included, the majority were cohort studies (75%) based in the USA (66%). The primary screening methods included Cancer antigen 125 and transvaginal ultrasound scanning. Patients were stratified by risk, with four studies focused on high-risk populations and eight in average-risk populations. The false-positive and surgical screening rates exhibited significant variability, regardless of risk (0.1%-23.3% and 0%-54.9%, respectively). Complications associated with unnecessary surgical interventions, such as perforation, blood loss and bowel injury, were only reported in four studies. No studies examined the effect these interventions had on patients' quality of life or directly reported the associated costs of these interventions. Conclusion: This review highlights the significant variability in ovarian cancer screening results, which lead to unnecessary and invasive surgical procedures causing complications such as perforation, blood loss and bowel injury.
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.