SynthesisCancer research and treatment2025
Presentation of Benefits and Harms in Cancer Screening Guidelines for Koreans: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Cancer research and treatment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
purposeThis study systematically reviewed cancer screening guidelines for the Korean population to evaluate the benefits and harms of the recommended cancer screening practices. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched international electronic databases from inception to July 2023. Two reviewers independently conducted reference screening and data extraction. Data were extracted based on recommendations from each guideline and presentation of benefits and harms. General characteristics of the cancer screening guidelines, including cancer type, recommended screening methods, certainty of evidence, were collected. Moreover, we obtained key information on the benefits and harms of screening interventions, including the quantification of their relative and absolute effects.
resultsFifteen recommendations were identified for the use of interventions for the early detection of stomach, liver, colorectal, breast, cervical, and lung cancers in nine guidelines published between 2011 and 2015. Seven guidelines collected evidence through de novo systematic reviews. Eight guidelines presented the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Benefits are presented as relative risks, and harms are presented as absolute risks. Six recommendations presented the absolute effects of both benefits and harms (comparable); eight presented them unevenly, including quantifying benefits relatively but presenting harms as absolute measures (asymmetric); and one presented neither benefits nor harms (incomplete).
conclusionMore than half of guidelines fail to present the benefits and harms of screening in a balanced manner. To enable users and beneficiaries make informed decisions based on evidence, the benefits and harms supporting recommendations should be given in a transparent and balanced manner.
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.