Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41105409›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Geographic and Temporal Patterns of Screening for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the US, 1997-2019.

Pranoti Pradhan, Hari S Iyer, Timothy R Rebbeck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pranoti PradhanDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Hari S IyerDivision of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Timothy R RebbeckDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Despite guidelines and recommendations, cancer screening remains low and variable across geographic and sociodemographic groups, contributing to persisting disparities. Objective: To analyze geographic and temporal patterns of county-level cancer screening prevalence for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer over a 22-year period in the US and examine sociodemographic factors associated with screening clusters. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used an ecological panel design using county-level screening prevalence as the unit of analysis. Data were collected from US mainland counties (ie, excluding Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico) from 1997 to 2019, with prevalence estimated over 3- to 5-year periods. Data were analyzed from 2024 to 2025. Exposures: County-level screening prevalence was estimated from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the National Health Interview Survey from 1997 to 2019. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics were estimated from the 2000 US Census and linked with county and geographic clusters of screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Spatial autocorrelation analyses, including Global Moran I and bivariate local indicator of spatial autocorrelation, were conducted to assess geographic clustering of county-level cancer screening prevalence over time. A queen contiguity matrix defined neighboring counties, and permutation tests evaluated statistical significance. Results: Data from 3142 counties were assessed. Spatial analyses of mammography, Papanicolaou test, and colorectal cancer screening in the contiguous US from 1997 to 2019 revealed consistent geographic clustering, with high screening prevalence in the Northeast and lower prevalence in the Southwest. Spatial autocorrelation, measured by Global Moran I, declined over time. For example, the distribution of mammography screening became 83% more uniform in more recent years (eg, Moran I = 0.57 in 1997-1999 vs Moran I = 0.10 in 2017-2019). Similarly, Papanicolaou test screening became more uniform in more recent years (eg, Moran I = 0.44 in 1997-1999 vs Moran I = 0.07 in 2017-2019). Bivariate local indicator of spatial autocorrelation analyses identified clusters of persistently high and low screening, with sociodemographic characteristics associated with clusters that changed from low to high. For example, for both Papanicolaou test and mammography, areas that changed from low to high were more likely to be low socioeconomic status, suggesting improvements in disadvantaged areas in 2017 to 2019 vs 1997 to 1999. Disadvantaged areas were most likely to experienced persistently low screening, particularly for breast or colorectal cancer. Conclusion and Relevance: These findings suggest that despite increasing screening overall, which led to reduced geographic variation in screening, local clusters of high and low screening persisted in the Northeast and Southwest US, respectively. Future studies could incorporate county-level health care access characteristics to explain why areas of low screening did not catch up to optimize cancer screening practices.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMass ScreeningUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultAgedBehavioral Risk Factor Surveillance SystemCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceUnited States

Identifiers

PMID41105409
PMCPMC12534853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.