SynthesisJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2026
Personalizing cancer risk: a systematic review of risk communication strategies.
Synthesis in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2026. 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.
- The Missing Dimension in Cancer Education: Developmental Meaning-Making and the Expert's Illusion of Symmetry.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Personalized risk communication (PRCom) can help individuals make informed decisions about electing to undergo cancer screening based on their specific risk. In this systematic review, we examined existing risk communication strategies used in the presentation of PRCom and how they may impact screening-related cognitive and behavioral outcomes. Methods: We searched Embase.com, Ovid-Medline All, Scopus, CINAHL Complete, and CENTRAL Trials (via Cochrane Library) for randomized controlled trials addressing interventions with an element of “personalized” cancer risk communication based on the individual’s risk factors. Results: Eighteen unique studies were included. From these 18 studies, we extracted data on PRCom presentation methods and outcome measures such as knowledge and screening completion. Text was used in the majority of PRCom (56%, n = 10), followed by graphs (39%, n = 7), icon arrays (17%, n = 3), charts (17%, n = 3), graphics (17%, n = 3), and video (6%, n = 1). None of these studies included direct format comparisons. We found that knowledge of risk increased in scenarios where PRCom: 1) combined visual (e.g., videos) and text-based communication; and 2) used verbatim (4/5), rather than gist communication (2/7). Screening completion also increased for PRCom with both visual and text-based communication (3/4). However, knowledge of risk and screening completion were minimally impacted if PRCom used only text/verbal communication (1/3 for knowledge of risk, 0/2 for screening completion) or only visual aids (1/3 for knowledge of risk, 2/5 for screening completion). Conclusion: Future research examining the translation of communication strategies to screening-related cognitive and behavioral outcomes is warranted.
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.