Journal of Medical Screening

Papers
(The TQCC of Journal of Medical Screening is 3. The table below lists those papers that are above that threshold based on CrossRef citation counts [max. 250 papers]. The publications cover those that have been published in the past four years, i.e., from 2021-11-01 to 2025-11-01.)
ArticleCitations
Aptima HPV E6/E7 mRNA and cytology cross-sectional performance as primary screening tests for detection of high-grade cervical lesions in HIV positive and negative women in South Africa40
“DNA tests for every baby on the NHS”35
Validation of a monoclonal unconjugated estriol antibody for use in prenatal maternal serum screening32
Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review24
Simulated arbitration of discordance between radiologists and artificial intelligence interpretation of breast cancer screening mammograms22
An economic scenario analysis of implementing artificial intelligence in BreastScreen Norway–Impact on radiologist person-years, costs and effects22
When primary prevention replaces screening20
Risk stratification in medical screening18
Carrier rate of thalassemia among 25,910 high school students in Shaoguan area, China16
Comparing screening based on the NHS Health Check and Polypill Prevention Programmes in the primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes15
Timely adherence to follow-up after high-risk lung cancer screenings15
Interval cancers in a national colorectal screening programme based on faecal immunochemical testing: Implications for faecal haemoglobin concentration threshold and sex inequality14
Percentage mammographic density or absolute breast density for risk stratification in breast screening: Possible implications for socioeconomic health disparity13
Applying the healthcare failure mode and effects analysis approach to improve the quality of an organised colorectal cancer screening programme12
Systematic review and meta-analysis of colon capsule endoscopy accuracy for colorectal cancer screening. An alternative during the Covid-19 pandemic?11
The Risk-Screening Converter: Use of multiple risk factors11
Response to the letter: “Ethics of screening promotion: A slippery slope to forced marketing?”11
Implementation of a centralized HPV-based cervical cancer screening programme in Tuscany: First round results and comparison with the foregoing Pap-based screening programme10
Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer screening: A 6-year cohort study10
Screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer: A comparison of international guidelines on prostate-specific antigen testing10
Evaluation of benefits and harms of adaptive screening schedules for lung cancer: A microsimulation study8
Public cervical cancer screening recommendations from US cancer centers: Assessing adherence to national guidelines8
Screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ, 2008–2020: An observational study8
The Risk-Screening Converter8
Cancer screening after the age of 75: Nationwide population-based trends7
Cancer screening programs in Japan: Progress and challenges7
Folic acid and neural tube defects: Discovery, debate and the need for policy change7
Factors associated with women's supplemental screening intentions following dense breast notification in an online randomised experimental study6
“It's cancer screening after all”. Barriers to cervical and colorectal cancer screening and attitudes to promotion of self-sampling kits upon attendance for breast cancer screening6
Effects of health education on screening rate of first-degree relatives of cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis6
Association between time to colonoscopy after positive fecal testing and colorectal cancer outcomes in Alberta, Canada5
Age at breast cancer screening in women with intellectual disability5
Interval cancer after two rounds of a Swedish population-based screening program using gender-specific cut-off levels in fecal immunochemical test5
Trends in colorectal cancer screening in the United States, 2012 to 20205
Differential impact of test performance characteristics on burden-to-benefit tradeoffs for blood-based colorectal cancer screening: A microsimulation analysis5
Skin cancer screening recommendations by U.S. cancer centers: Inconsistency with national guidelines4
Attitudes towards being offered a choice of self-sampling or clinician sampling for cervical screening: A cross-sectional survey of women taking part in a clinical validation of HPV self-collection de4
Quality indicators for cervical screening in Sweden4
Feasibility of population-based screening of sickle cell disease through the primary health care system in tribal areas of India4
Including the method of detection for breast cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database is long overdue4
Comments on “Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer screening” by Huang et al. https://doi.org/10.1177/096914132513384564
Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical test: Patterns of participation3
The impact on clinical outcomes and healthcare resources from discontinuing colonoscopy surveillance subsequent to low-risk adenoma removal: A simulation study using the OncoSim-Colorectal model3
Risk or chance3
Response to Editorial: ‘Risk or chance’3
The Consensus Project: Participation in cervical cancer screening by the first cohorts of girls offered HPV vaccination at age 15–16 years in Italy3
Beneficial effect of repeated participation in breast cancer screening upon survival3
Door-to-door hepatitis C screening in Georgia: An innovative model to increase testing and linkage to care3
Participation and cancer detection after reminders versus ordinary invitations in BreastScreen Norway3
Prevalence of colorectal cancer and breast cancer screening according to history of diabetes in 2010–20193
Is GP practice bowel, breast and cervical cancer screening coverage correlated with GP practice list inflation?3
Age-specific differences in tumour characteristics between screen-detected and non-screen-detected breast cancers in women aged 40–74 at diagnosis in Sweden from 2008 to 20173
Why are most colorectal cancers diagnosed outside of screening? A retrospective analysis of data from the English bowel screening programme3
0.25549817085266