The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Basic Issues in Population Screening for Cancer 23
Abstract
The value of population screening as an approach to cancer control is controversial because the objectives, benefits, costs, and potential adverse effects of screening programs are not widely agreed upon, nor are the many difficulties involved in evaluating a cancer screening program well recognized. A review of the issues pertinent to cancer screening and their interrelationships is presented. The characteristics of a particular cancer that should be considered before it becomes the target of a screening program are described; emphasis is placed on the prevalence of the detectable preclinical phase. The features of a good screening test are reviewed and the importance of specificity is indicated. Methods for evaluation of screening programs are considered, and the need for measurement of the effects of screening on the mortality rate is emphasized. The biases inherent in some commonly used evaluation procedures, especially lead time bias and length bias, are discussed. The possible adverse effects of cancer screening are pointed out, especially its capacity to increase morbidity. Several approaches to improving cancer screening programs are presented. Finally, the relevance of knowledge regarding the optimum interscreening interval to cancer control and to research issues is described.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Design of the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial
Prorok, P. C., Andriole, G. L., Bresalier, R. S., Buys, S. S., Chia, D., David Crawford, E., Fogel, R., Gelmann, E. P., Gilbert, F., Hasson, M. A., et al. (2000) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(00)00098-2 · Cited by 1,037
American Cancer Society Guideline for the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Update 2010
Wolf, A. M. D., Wender, R. C., Etzioni, R. B., Thompson, I. M., D'Amico, A. V., Volk, R. J., Brooks, D. D., Dash, C., Guessous, I., Andrews, K., et al. (2010) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20066 · Cited by 965
Gilliland, F. D., Hunt, W. C., Morris, D. M., & Key, C. R. (1997) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19970201)79:3<564::aid-cncr20>3.0.co;2-0 · Cited by 803
A Comparison of Fecal Occult-Blood Tests for Colorectal-Cancer Screening
Allison, J. E., Tekawa, I. S., Ransom, L. J., & Adrain, A. L. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199601183340304 · Cited by 622
Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy
Black, W. C., & Welch, H. G. (1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199304293281706 · Cited by 547
Metadata
- Venue
- JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1980-05
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1263-72
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W1904463243
- Cited by
- 321
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Basic Issues in Population Screening for Cancer 23. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/64.5.1263
- The paper
- Basic Issues in Population Screening for Cancer 23. (1980). JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/64.5.1263
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.