ArticlePloS one2025
Unpleasant but effective: Newspaper coverage of cancer screening and cancer in the Netherlands from 2010 to 2022.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Investigating Online Discussions About Cancer Screening on Twitter (Subsequently Rebranded as X): Corpus Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Participation rates in cancer screening programs (CSPs) have shown a declining trend, and research suggests that news media reports may contribute to public opinion. Therefore, we aimed to understand how Dutch news media report on CSPs. We mainly focused on breast, colorectal, and cervical CSPs but did not exclude reports on other cancer types. Through a systematic content analysis 5,503 news articles from 2010 to 2022 were analyzed for key characteristics such as topic and reported cancer type. Results showed that most news reports framed CSPs as effective and beneficial for public health. The reliability of screening methods was sometimes criticized. In these cases, reports discussed overdiagnosis or medicalization. Although reports were positive about CSPs' effectiveness, they were sometimes negative about organizational, psychological, and physiological aspects. Early detection and diagnosis of cancer are portrayed as having benefits that outweigh the costs. These findings show that news media often describe CSPs as a 'necessary evil' and that participation may be inconvenient and stressful, but that early detection and diagnosis of cancer are benefits that seem to outweigh this necessary evil.
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.