Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41317017›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cancer2026

Indicators to identify cancer screening providers with suboptimal case detection: A scoping review.

Jiayao Lei, Milena Falcaro, Adam R Brentnall, James F O'Mahony, Sisse Helle Njor, Matejka Rebolj

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Jiayao LeiCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention, and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4718-1414
Milena FalcaroCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention, and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7576-3577
Adam R BrentnallCentre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6327-4357
James F O'MahonySchool of Economics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3414-7388
Sisse Helle NjorDepartment for Data, Innovation and Research, Vejle Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0429-4176
Matejka ReboljCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention, and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9597-645X

Funding

Cancerfonden 24 3862Cancer Research UK C8162/A29083University College of Dublin Ad Astra programmeVetenskapsrådet 2021-00289Vetenskapsrådet 2023-01809
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several international guidelines consider sensitivity (of test, episode, or programme) and related measures of the detection of prevalent cases of target disease to be among key performance indicators for quality control of routine cancer screening programmes and use them to identify suboptimal providers. We aimed to describe the variability encountered in real-world settings around the measurement of these quantities in cervical and colorectal cancer screening, where the target for disease detection includes preinvasive disease. We performed a scoping review of grey literature, including international guidelines, annual statistical reports, and other official documents from European cervical and colorectal screening programmes. From the reviewed material, we extracted information on 20 measures used for this purpose. Some measures have been adopted in several programmes, but none have been used in all, not even within the same cancer type. While many of the methods might appear plausible for the intended use, our analysis showed that when applied to routinely collected data they may provide misleading or uninterpretable estimates of the ability of individual providers and the service as a whole to detect prevalent cases. Screening programmes should be cautious in their choice and interpretation of these measures. Further methodological development is required to better support policymakers and quality control managers in prioritising measures that are fit for purpose in routine cancer screening programmes.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMass ScreeningQuality Indicators, Health CareUterine Cervical NeoplasmsHumanscancer screeningevaluationindicatorsmethodssensitivity

Identifiers

PMID41317017
PMCPMC12963708

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.