SynthesisFrontiers in public health2025
Developing and validating key performance indicators for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programs: a literature review and Delphi survey.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- Cancer burden and control in China: landscape, trends and challenges.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Determinants of Early-Stage Breast Cancer Presentation in Western Kazakhstan: A Population-Based Analysis of Urban-Rural Disparities and Diagnostic Pathways (2015-2025).Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Early detection of cancer significantly impacts disease management and contributes to a reduction in cancer mortality rates. This study aims to identify, extract, systematize, and validate a set of indicators for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programs that are applicable and easily understood within any healthcare system. Methods: This study is conducted in two phases: a literature review and an expert panel evaluation. In the first phase, electronic databases-PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus-were searched for articles published from January 2000 to November 2023. Two reviewers critically appraised the articles based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Indicators were extracted from the selected articles through content analysis. In the second phase, the extracted indicators were reviewed by ten experts. Consensus on the indicators was achieved through two consecutive rounds of review. Results: The final list comprises 30 indicators categorized into three dimensions: two for input, sixteen for process, and twelve for outcome. The overall content validity index (CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR) determined using the expert panel agreement approach, were high (≥ 0.9). The input dimension includes two indicators: Adequacy and Availability of Human Resources, and Percentage of Health Centers Providing Cancer Screening Services. The process dimension comprises 16 indicators, including Timely Diagnostic Evaluation of Abnormal Screenings, Rescreening, Recall Rate, Percentage of Smears per 1,000 Women Aged 20-29 per Year, Public Education, Data Availability, Referral Rates (to GP and Surgeon), Drop Rate During Referral, Biopsy Rate, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy Rate, Proportion of Colonoscopies, Total and Partial Mastectomy Rates, Tumor Diameter, and Tumor Grading. Finally, the outcome dimension features 12 indicators: Screening Coverage, All-Cause Mortality Rate, Cause-Specific Mortality Rate, Invasive Cancer Detection Rate, Interval Cancer Rate, Ductal Carcinoma Conclusion: This study identified a robust set of 30 key performance indicators (KPIs) for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programs, with a high overall content validity index demonstrating strong expert consensus on their relevance and importance.
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.