ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Improving Cancer Screening Program Evaluation Through Principal Component Analysis-Driven Composite Indicators: Evidence From Lombardy, Italy.
Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionCancer screening programs are pivotal in facilitating early tumor detection and reducing cancer-related mortality. However, the reliance on individual performance indicators may not offer a fully integrated perspective of screening effectiveness. This study aimed to develop a composite indicator that consolidates key screening metrics using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to derive objective weights.MethodsData were drawn from the annual collection of breast and colorectal cancer screening activities conducted in 2023 by the eight regional health authorities (ATSs) of Lombardy, Italy. Indicators spanning structural, organizational, clinical-diagnostic, and impact dimensions were standardized and analyzed using PCA. The resulting factor loadings informed weights for computing a weighted arithmetic mean of the z-scored indicators. Robustness was evaluated through sensitivity analyses involving alternative normalization techniques. Additionally, comparisons were made against an equally weighted arithmetic mean of the same indicators.ResultsThe composite indicator identified marked geographical variations in screening performance across Lombardy's ATSs. Structural and organizational factors, particularly examination coverage and participation rates, exerted the greatest influence on overall effectiveness in both breast and colorectal screening programs. In contrast, clinical-diagnostic and impact measures, as well as invitation coverage, contributed less substantially. High correlations in the sensitivity analyses affirmed the reliability of the proposed methodology.ConclusionsAdopting a composite indicator can substantially improve the evaluation of cancer screening initiatives by integrating diverse metrics into a cohesive, objective framework. In doing so, it enables more effective resource allocation, enhances adherence strategies, and guides targeted interventions aimed at bolstering screening success.
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.