ArticleScientific reports2025
Effectiveness of early cancer screening and diagnosis in urban China.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- A Decadal Bibliometric Analysis of Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) Research in Lung Cancer (2012-2022).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Data analysis of residents aged 40-59 in colorectal cancer screening in Pudong New Area, Shanghai, 2013-2023.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Plasma heat shock protein 90α shows a concentration-dependent, threshold association with pulmonary nodules in asymptomatic males >40 years undergoing low-dose computed tomography.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Trends in breast cancer mortality and analysis of years of life lost among Chinese residents, 2013-2021.Frontiers in oncology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early cancer screening is globally acknowledged as a key strategy for reducing cancer mortality and improving treatment efficacy, and has been integrated into core public health policies in many countries. To assess the effectiveness of early cancer screening programs in China and to inform targeted screening strategies for high-risk populations, we examined trends in screening adherence and detection rates for five cancers among individuals aged 40-74 in Nanchang, China. From 2018 to 2022, we used the Cancer Risk Assessment Questionnaire to evaluate cancer risk, referring high-risk individuals to designated hospitals for free clinical screenings by appointment. During this period, 75,554 participants were assessed. The results revealed an overall high-risk rate of 54.12%, with no significant gender difference (53.86% for men and 54.29% for women). The highest risk rate, 61.88%, was observed in the 65-69 age group. Among the cancers studied, lung cancer had the highest risk (29.54%), followed by colorectal (26.02%), upper gastrointestinal (21.40%), breast (20.22%), and liver cancer (11.58%). Notably, all cancer types except breast cancer had higher risk rates in men. The participation rate for breast cancer screening was the highest, followed by those for lung cancer, liver cancer, colorectal cancer, and upper gastrointestinal cancer. As the program progressed, we observed a decrease in the overall high-risk rate and an increase in screening adherence for lung and colorectal cancers. Future efforts should focus on improving screening and monitoring risk factors for the 65-69 age group. Additionally, enhancing awareness campaigns for lung cancer, refining screening methods for upper gastrointestinal cancers, and increasing participation in screening programs are crucial.
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.