What do systematic reviews say?

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

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 4 (no pooled analysis): specificity 0.99 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.00), 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00), and 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.80) across the 3 studies. Certainty VERY LOW.
  3 studies · 3600 participants
  Very low

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 4 (no pooled analysis): sensitivity 0.85 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.88), 0.82 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.96), and 0.94 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.00) across the 3 studies. Prevalence 12.2% to 30.9%. Certainty VERY LOW.
  3 studies · 3600 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
  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

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
  4 studies · 2331 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

• Mobile phone messaging for communicating results of medical investigations 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 2782 participants
  Low

Tuberculosis outreach screening vs no intervention

Tuberculosis outreach screening showed no clear difference in tuberculosis cases detected (microbiologically confirmed) compared with no intervention (low certainty).

• Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.24 [0.86, 1.79]
  4 studies · 163043 participants
  Low

Tuberculosis outreach screening vs a health promotion scheme

It is very uncertain whether outreach tuberculosis screening changes tuberculosis cases detected (microbiologically confirmed) compared with health promotion (very low certainty).

• Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.71 [1.27, 2.31]
  1 study · 110162 participants
  Very low

Tuberculosis outreach screening vs a health promotion scheme

• Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Tuberculosis outreach screening vs a health promotion scheme

• Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Tuberculosis outreach screening vs a health promotion scheme

• Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Tuberculosis outreach screening vs no intervention

Tuberculosis outreach screening may leads to lower default within first 2 months compared with no intervention (low certainty).

• Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.67 [0.47, 0.96]
  849 participants
  Low

Tuberculosis outreach screening vs no intervention

Tuberculosis outreach screening showed no clear difference in treatment success compared with no intervention (low certainty).

• Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.07 [1, 1.15]
  849 participants
  Low

Tuberculosis outreach screening vs no intervention

It is very uncertain whether tuberculosis outreach screening changes treatment failure compared with no intervention (very low certainty).

• Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.57 [0.5, 4.92]
  849 participants
  Very low

Tuberculosis outreach screening vs no intervention

Tuberculosis outreach screening showed no clear difference in tuberculosis mortality compared with no intervention (low certainty).

• Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.99 [0.43, 2.25]
  849 participants
  Low

Tuberculosis outreach screening vs no intervention

It is very uncertain whether tuberculosis outreach screening changes long‐term tuberculosis prevalence compared with no intervention (very low certainty).

• Interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection at primary healthcare or community‐level services 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.14 [0.65, 2]
  556836 participants
  Very low

Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions changes functional ability in activities of daily living (FIM) After… compared with control (very low certainty).

• Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 37 participants
  Very low