ArticlePreventive medicine reports2025
Initial and persistent changes in cancer screening in a US Midwestern community health center network following the onset of COVID-19.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Overarching view of trends and disparities in malignant neoplasm of the ovary between 1999-2023: a comprehensive CDC WONDER database study.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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To assess longer-term change in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening among Community Health Centers (CHCs) following onset of COVID-19. Methods: Among 27 CHCs in the US Midwest, we examine trends in standard electronic clinical quality measures and test-volume based cancer screening measures from January 2019 through October 2021. Test-volume measures include the number of cancer screening tests completed, the difference between the actual versus expected cumulative number of tests completed (i.e. pandemic screening gap), and the recent testing ratio (i.e. proportion of individuals up-to-date on screening who completed testing in the past year). Results: Standard cancer screening quality measures showed only modest changes. In contrast, test-volume measures show large and persistent deficits. After a sharp drop in screening activity in early 2020, activity resumed but failed to reach pre-pandemic levels. As a result, the pandemic screening gap continued to grow larger over time reaching approximately 5400 fewer breast, 8600 fewer cervical, and 4500 fewer colorectal cancer screenings performed. This represents a 16-18 % deficit in the number of tests and is the equivalent of 3.5-4.0 months of dedicated pre-pandemic cancer screening activity. The recent testing ratio also decreased in 2020 and also failed to return to pre-pandemic levels. Conclusions: Following onset of COVID-19, there was a persistent negative change in cancer screening in our CHC network. This change is more evident when examining test-volume compared to standard quality metrics. Understanding and addressing the persistent pandemic cancer screening gap is critical to limit health burdens and disparities related to cancer.
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.