| Title |
Screening for Ovarian Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1001/jama.2017.21926 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David C. Grossman, Susan J. Curry, Douglas K. Owens, Michael J. Barry, Karina W. Davidson, Chyke A. Doubeni, John W. Epling, Alex R. Kemper, Alex H. Krist, Ann E. Kurth, C. Seth Landefeld, Carol M. Mangione, Maureen G. Phipps, Michael Silverstein, Melissa A. Simon, Chien-Wen Tseng |
| Abstract |
With approximately 14 000 deaths per year, ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer death among US women and the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer. More than 95% of ovarian cancer deaths occur among women 45 years and older. To update the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for ovarian cancer. The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women not known to be at high risk for ovarian cancer (ie, high risk includes women with certain hereditary cancer syndromes that increase their risk for ovarian cancer). Outcomes of interest included ovarian cancer mortality, quality of life, false-positive rate, surgery and surgical complication rates, and psychological effects of screening. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that screening for ovarian cancer does not reduce ovarian cancer mortality. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that the harms from screening for ovarian cancer are at least moderate and may be substantial in some cases, and include unnecessary surgery for women who do not have cancer. Given the lack of mortality benefit of screening, and the moderate to substantial harms that could result from false-positive screening test results and subsequent surgery, the USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the harms of screening for ovarian cancer outweigh the benefit, and the net balance of the benefit and harms of screening is negative. The USPSTF recommends against screening for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women. (D recommendation) This recommendation applies to asymptomatic women who are not known to have a high-risk hereditary cancer syndrome. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 229 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 72 | 31% |
| Spain | 33 | 14% |
| Japan | 7 | 3% |
| France | 6 | 3% |
| Canada | 5 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 2% |
| Brazil | 3 | 1% |
| Ecuador | 3 | 1% |
| Mexico | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 15 | 7% |
| Unknown | 79 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 165 | 72% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 32 | 14% |
| Scientists | 29 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 158 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 8% |
| Researcher | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 37 | 23% |
| Unknown | 48 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Unknown | 55 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 412. 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 18 April 2023.
All research outputs
#72,963
of 25,789,020 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#1,329
of 36,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,868
of 458,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#33
of 388 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,789,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 36,823 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 72.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 458,038 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 388 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.