What do systematic reviews say?

Intervention not reported

The intervention may leads to higher personal invitation versus invitation letter: uptake of screening (low certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.32 [1.11, 1.56]
  5 studies · 27663 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

The intervention probably leads to higher letter with fixed appointment versus letter with open invitation to… (moderate certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.61 [1.48, 1.75]
  5 studies · 5742 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes counselling versus control: uptake of screening (very low certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.23 [1.04, 1.45]
  2 studies · 393 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes counselling versus other: uptake of screening (very low certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.13 [0.9, 1.41]
  1 study · 208 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

The intervention may leads to higher education versus control: uptake of screening (low certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.35 [1.18, 1.54]
  13 studies · 63415 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2500 participants
  Very low

Any quality improvement intervention vs usual care

• Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  56 studies · 329164 participants
  Low

Any quality improvement intervention vs usual care

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Stepped quality improvement intervention vs the intervention alone

• Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  10 studies · 23715 participants
  Moderate

Stepped quality improvement intervention vs the intervention alone

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Personalised risk communication vs general risk information

Personalised risk communication may leads to higher uptake of screening test ‐ Numerical and categorised risk combined… compared with general risk information (low certainty).

• Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 1.15 [1.02, 1.29]
  12 studies · 6442 participants
  Low

Personalised risk communication vs general risk information

• Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 588 participants
  Moderate

Personalised risk communication vs general risk information

• Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 260 participants
  Low

Personalised risk communication vs general risk information

• Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 838 participants
  High

Personalised risk communication vs general risk information

Personalised risk communication leads to higher knowledge regarding screening test/condition concerned ‐ calculated… compared with general risk information (high certainty).

• Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 2.6 [1.27, 5.34]
  3 studies · 1413 participants
  High

Personalised risk communication vs general risk information

Personalised risk communication leads to higher knowledge regarding screening test / condition concerned ‐ personal… compared with general risk information (high certainty).

• Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 7.13 [5.79, 8.79]
  2 studies · 2107 participants
  High

Low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening vs annual chest x‐ray

Annual low‐dose CT screening leads to lower lung cancer mortality compared with annual chest x‐ray (high certainty).

• Screening for lung cancer 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.8 [0.7, 0.92]
  1 study · 53454 participants
  High

Low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening vs annual chest x‐ray

Annual low‐dose CT screening showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality compared with annual chest x‐ray (high certainty).

• Screening for lung cancer 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.94 [0.88, 1]
  1 study · 53454 participants
  High

Screening of psychosocial well‐being and care needs vs usual care

• Systematic screening and assessment of psychosocial well‐being and care needs of people with cancer 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  14 studies · 5752 participants
  Very low

Screening of psychosocial well‐being and care needs vs usual care

• Systematic screening and assessment of psychosocial well‐being and care needs of people with cancer 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  13 studies · 5577 participants
  Very low