ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2026
Patient, community, and clinician beliefs about multi-cancer detection tests: implications for the evidence needed to recommend routine use.
Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMulti-cancer detection tests (MCDs) have the potential to reduce cancer-related deaths by identifying cancers early when they can be more effectively treated. While initial studies show promise in detecting multiple cancer types, there is a lack of large-scale, prospective trials evaluating their clinical utility and real-world impact.
methodsWe conducted 23 focus groups with 158 participants to identify and describe key stakeholders' perspectives on the benefits and risks of MCD tests. Participants included clinicians (n = 58), patients (n = 17), and community members recruited from partner community advisory boards (n = 83).
resultsParticipants recognized the benefits of early cancer detection and the convenience of a single blood test in reducing barriers to cancer screening. However, they shared concerns about insufficient clinical validation for MCD tests and the potential physical and psychological harm that false positives, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment may cause. They also expressed concerns about the financial costs and time burden associated with follow-up care, as well as potential inequities in access and outcomes in underserved communities.
conclusionsPatients and clinicians want better evidence before routine use of MCD testing for cancer screening. Future research should prioritize rigorous randomized controlled trials that evaluate cancer-mortality, quality of life, diagnostic workup, and potential harms.
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.