Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40235947›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025

Congruence of cancer screening recommendations between the USPSTF and the top ten US cancer centers: a cross sectional study.

Kristin Wright, Brian Shkabari, Christopher Booth, Kevin Knopf, Michelle Tregear, Bishal Gyawali

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

6 authors.

Kristin WrightDepartment of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Brian ShkabariDivision of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Christopher BoothDepartment of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
Kevin KnopfInstitute for Health Policy Studies and Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Michelle TregearNational Breast Cancer Coalition, Washington DC, USA.
Bishal GyawaliDepartment of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent volunteer organization of multi-disciplinary national experts in disease prevention that publishes evidence-based guidelines for cancer screening. However, these guidelines are not binding and many individual cancer centers publish their own screening recommendations. Methods: This cross-sectional study compared the congruence of cancer screening recommendations between the USPSTF and the Top Ten US Cancer Centers as per the U.S News and World Report 2022-2023 for colorectal (CRC), lung (LC), cervical (CC), prostate (PC), and breast cancers (BC) in average risk patients. The evaluated variables included screening tests, recommendation direction, strength, frequency, age of start, age of end, and discussion/quantification of risks and benefits. Findings: Our study identified substantial variability between the screening recommendations from the Top Ten US Cancer Centers and the evidence based USPSTF guidelines for BC, PC, and CC. The discordance was almost always in the direction of the cancer centers recommending more screening beyond the USPSTF's recommendations, and without discussion of potential risks and harms. For LC and CRC, the guidelines were generally concordant between the cancer centers and USPSTF. Interpretation: Top Ten US Cancer Centers make screening recommendations inconsistent with those of the USPSTF recommendations, with cancer centers generally recommending more screening and omitting a nuanced discussion of benefits and risks. Given the national and international reputation of these cancer centers, their recommendations can have important population level implications, including confusion in the public. Funding: None.

Indexed as

Cancer diagnosisCancer screeningGuidelinesOverdiagnosisTop Ten US Cancer CentersUSPSTF

Identifiers

PMID40235947
PMCPMC11999067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.