ReviewPreventive medicine reports2026
Effects of a telephone intervention on breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening: A meta-analysis.
Review in Preventive medicine reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to explore the effects of telephone interventions on screening behavior for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched from inception to June 2024 using keywords related to telephone, cancer screening, uptake, and randomized controlled trial. Characteristics of the study, participants, interventions, and outcomes were then extracted. Results: A total of 72 articles were deemed eligible, 43.06% were published before 2010, and 94.44% had a low risk of overall bias. The telephone group was 2.05 (95% CI: 1.81, 2.32) times more likely to undergo cancer screening than the control group, which received regular care without telephone or letter. The results were similar across the three cancer screenings, as well as for telephone reminders and counseling. The telephone-only or telephone and letter group were 1.45 (95% CI: 1.27, 1.66) and 1.56 (95% CI: 1.39, 1.74) times more likely to undergo cancer screening than the letter group, respectively. Conclusions: Telephone interventions can improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening compared to no intervention. The impact of new technologies on population-based reminders requires further evaluation.
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.