↓ Skip to main content

CMAJ

Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
102 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
195 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
345 Mendeley
Title
Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2018
DOI 10.1503/cmaj.171154
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark J Dobrow, Victoria Hagens, Roger Chafe, Terrence Sullivan, Linda Rabeneck

Abstract

In 1968, Wilson and Jungner published 10 principles of screening that often represent the de facto starting point for screening decisions today; 50 years on, are these principles still the right ones? Our objectives were to review published work that presents principles for population-based screening decisions since Wilson and Jungner's seminal publication, and to conduct a Delphi consensus process to assess the review results. We conducted a systematic review and modified Delphi consensus process. We searched multiple databases for articles published in English in 1968 or later that were intended to guide population-based screening decisions, described development and modification of principles, and presented principles as a set or list. Identified sets were compared for basic characteristics (e.g., number, categorization), a citation analysis was conducted, and principles were iteratively synthesized and consolidated into categories to assess evolution. Participants in the consensus process assessed the level of agreement with the importance and interpretability of the consolidated screening principles. We identified 41 sets and 367 unique principles. Each unique principle was coded to 12 consolidated decision principles that were further categorized as disease/condition, test/intervention or program/system principles. Program or system issues were the focus of 3 of Wilson and Jungner's 10 principles, but comprised almost half of all unique principles identified in the review. The 12 consolidated principles were assessed through 2 rounds of the consensus process, leading to specific refinements to improve their relevance and interpretability. No gaps or missing principles were identified. Wilson and Jungner's principles are remarkably enduring, but increasingly reflect a truncated version of contemporary thinking on screening that does not fully capture subsequent focus on program or system principles. Ultimately, this review and consensus process provides a comprehensive and iterative modernization of guidance to inform population-based screening decisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 102 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 345 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 345 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 32 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 9%
Student > Master 31 9%
Researcher 22 6%
Student > Postgraduate 22 6%
Other 74 21%
Unknown 133 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 4%
Social Sciences 12 3%
Psychology 8 2%
Other 41 12%
Unknown 151 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 91. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2023.
All research outputs
#467,004
of 25,380,089 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#812
of 9,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,664
of 345,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#25
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,380,089 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,446 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.