ArticleBMC cancer2025
Prevalence of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings among select New York City populations.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrior studies have found racial and ethnic disparities in cancer screenings, yet smaller minority ethnic groups are often aggregated.
methodsData from the 2021-2022 Community Health Resources and Needs Assessment (Cancer CHRNA) and the 2017-2020 NYC Community Health Survey (CHS) examined the prevalence of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings among Eastern European, Afro-Caribbean, Latine, Chinese, Korean, South Asian, and Southwest Asian and North African (SWANA) groups in New York City. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated adjusted relative risks of cancer screening outcomes by group.
resultsUp-to-date mammogram screening was low (< 70%) among all groups except Afro-Caribbean in the Cancer CHRNA; and among South Asian, Chinese, and Eastern European groups in the CHS. In logistic regression, South Asian and SWANA groups were less likely to have received an up-to-date mammogram compared to the Afro-Caribbean group in the Cancer CHRNA; no group differences were found in the CHS. Up-to-date Pap screening was low (< 70%) among all groups except Latina in the Cancer CHRNA; and among South Asian and Chinese groups in the CHS. In logistic regression, all other groups were less likely to have received an up-to-date Pap test compared to the Latina group in the Cancer CHRNA; and Chinese and South Asian groups were less likely to have received an up-to-date Pap test compared to the Latina group in the CHS. Up-to-date colonoscopy screening was low (< 70%) among all groups in the Cancer CHRNA; and among SWANA, South Asian, Chinese, and Eastern European groups in the CHS. In logistic regression, all groups except Chinese were less likely to have received an up-to-date colonoscopy compared to the Eastern European group in the Cancer CHRNA; and the Chinese and SWANA groups were less likely to have received an up-to-date colonoscopy compared to the Afro-Caribbean group in the CHS.
conclusionsDisparities in cancer screenings differed by screening type and survey, with larger disparities found among groups in the Cancer CHRNA. System level efforts are needed to monitor cancer screening disparities by disaggregating diverse groups; culturally tailored strategies should be used to raise awareness to increase screening. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: Not applicable.
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.