ArticleJAMA network open2025
Geographic and Temporal Patterns of Screening for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the US, 1997-2019.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for risk-stratified breast cancer screening: a systematic review of evidence, clinical integration, and ethical implications in risk assessment tools.La Radiologia medica · 2026Pooled it
- Mixed-Method Formative Evaluation and Cultural Adaptation of Digital Health Communication Content and Delivery Promoting Lung Cancer Screening Shared Decision-Making.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterTrial
- Cancer Risk Factors, Screening, and Neighborhood Socioeconomic Deprivation Across the U.S. Urban-to-Frontier Continuum.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2026Article
- A Bayesian bivariate spatial modeling framework for stage-specific cancer incidence and targeting of screening efforts.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Global landscape and temporal trends in lifetime risk of colorectal cancer in 185 countries: a population-based study.Cancer biology & medicine · 2026Article
- Paired Capillary and Venous Serum Specimen Agreement for Protein Biomarker Measurements and Risk Category Outputs in a Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tool.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development and Evaluation of Innovation Scales for Mail-Based Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Self-Collection Among U.S. Low-Income Women.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Patient Portal Use and Cancer Screening in the United States: Individual Associations and Population Impact.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.