ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Congruence of cancer screening recommendations between the USPSTF and the top ten US cancer centers: a cross sectional study.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- HS-GC/MS-Based Targeted Blood VOC Panel for Canine Cancer Screening Using an Integrated Classification Framework in Retrospective Korea and Thailand Cohorts.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Educational Videos in Encouraging Preferences for Guideline-Based Cancer Screening in Japan: Three-Arm Pseudorandomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- HPV-Driven Cervical Carcinogenesis: Genetic and Epigenetic Mechanisms and Diagnostic Approaches.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- The functional and clinical significance of nucleoporin NUP153 across human cancers: a systematic study based on multi-omics analysis and bench work validation.Frontiers in immunology · 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
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
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.