ReviewCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Application of Cancer Screening Guidelines in Resource Limited Settings.
Review 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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Cancer Prevention, Control, and Outcomes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Progress and Challenges.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
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
Abstract
Cancer screening is increasingly promoted as a public health intervention, yet its effective translation with demonstrable impact on disease burden remains limited in low resource settings due to the suboptimal implementation of guidelines. While evidence from high-income countries and settings have informed international guidelines, the direct application of these recommendations often overlooks the realities of under-resourced settings, where diagnostic infrastructure, referral pathways, and treatment capacity are fragmented and inadequate. Moreover, the societal and health belief systems in many societies are different from high income country settings where screening was well received. This perspective provides a critical look at cancer screening with a focus on breast, cervical, colorectal, and oral cancers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and draws on global and national guidelines and capacity to highlight gaps in implementation and system preparedness. Considerable variation exists across countries in terms of eligible age groups, test modalities, and screening intervals, reflecting both contextual adaptation and the challenges of aligning evidence with feasibility. Emerging innovations, including digital technologies and artificial intelligence, offer potential benefits but raise important concerns related to validation, ethical use, and equity of access. Ultimately, cancer screening can serve as a "best buy" intervention only if countries invest in strengthening early diagnosis and treatment pathways, ensure system readiness, and adopt phased implementation strategies tailored to local contexts. Without such preparedness, large-scale screening risks misallocation of scarce resources without measurable impact on the disease burden.
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.