ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Longitudinal Adherence to Screening for Colorectal, Cervical, and Lung Cancer in a US Consortium.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health Communication and Stepped Reminders Interventions for Lung Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2026Trial
- Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Up-to-date prevalence at recommended ages for discontinuing routine colorectal, cervical and lung cancer screening.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEffective screening for colorectal, cervical, and lung cancer requires adherence over time, but little is known about repeat testing in real-world practice.
objectiveDescribe patterns of longitudinal screening adherence and identify patient and system factors associated with repeat testing.
designRetrospective cohort study of colorectal, cervical, or lung cancer screening in 2010-2019.
participantsAdults eligible for repeat colorectal (stool-based), cervical, or lung cancer screening following a negative index test in ten regional health systems comprising the US PROSPR consortium. MAIN MEASURES: Repeat screening based on guideline-recommended intervals. For the colorectal and lung cohorts with opportunities for multiple annual screening rounds, the main outcome was repeat screening categorized as none, inconsistent, or consistent.
resultsThe sample size was: 1,566,346 for colorectal, 216,344 for cervical, and 6,209 for lung cancer screening. For colorectal, cervical, and lung screeners, mean age at index was 58.2, 39.4, and 64.6 years, respectively, and 49%, 55% and 30% were Hispanic and/or non-white. Completion of the next screening round was 62% for colorectal, 56% for cervical, and 56% for lung cancer. For colorectal, over the next two rounds of testing, 53% were consistent, 33% inconsistent, and 14% no repeat screeners. The comparable percentages over 3 + rounds for colorectal were 40% consistent, 50% inconsistent, and 11% no repeat screeners. For lung, over the next two rounds, 47% were consistent, 31% inconsistent, and 22% no repeat screeners. The proportions over 3 + rounds for lung were 44% consistent, 42% inconsistent, and 14% no repeat screening. The health system was the strongest predictor of repeat and consistent testing with three- to ten-fold variation.
conclusionsAdherence to longitudinal screening for colorectal, cervical and lung cancer was suboptimal, particularly as the number of testing rounds increased. System-level strategies are needed to increase screening adherence given the strong relationship between health system and outcomes.
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.