Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 3 complete abstracts (793 words), 9 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
Organized periodic procedures performed on large groups of people for the purpose of detecting disease.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Mass Screenings; Screening, Mass; Screenings, Mass; Screening; Screenings.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures; Health Surveys; Diagnostic Services; Public Health Practice
- Narrower topics
- Anonymous Testing; Mass Chest X-Ray; Multiphasic Screening; Neonatal Screening; Pooled Testing; Vision Screening; Mandatory Testing; Substance Abuse Detection
- See also
- Sensitivity and Specificity
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 157,916 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Mass Screening” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 30,064 of them (19.0%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 48,401 records.
Reviews account for 22,040 records (14.0%) and meta-analyses for 1,105. Randomized controlled trials number 4,187 (2.7%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 39,556 |
| 2000-2009 | 39,895 |
| 2010-2019 | 48,401 |
| 2020 onward | 30,064 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 22,040 | 14.0% |
| Meta-analyses | 1,105 | 0.7% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 4,187 | 2.7% |
Method: PubMed query "Mass Screening"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.
Reading the evidence in clinical research
Research methods determine how much a result can be trusted. Randomized trials guard against confounding, systematic reviews and meta-analyses combine many studies, and observational designs are valuable but can show only association. Reporting standards, trial registration and pre-specified outcomes reduce bias. When reading about a method, ask what problem it is designed to solve and which problems it does not solve.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Implementing a Risk-Stratified National Breast Screening Programme in the United Kingdom: A Model-Based Cost-effectiveness Analysis | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 3 | cc by PMID 42536349 · DOI · PMC13628088 |
| Screen-Detected Coeliac Disease in a Nationally Representative Cohort: Health Indicators, Long-Term Outcomes and Mortality | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 1 | cc by PMID 42573482 · DOI · PMC13651919 |
| Risk-Guided Screening for Atrial Fibrillation Using Electronic Health Records | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 1 | cc by PMID 42517218 · DOI · PMC13506190 |
Implementing a Risk-Stratified National Breast Screening Programme in the United Kingdom: A Model-Based Cost-effectiveness Analysis [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundRisk-stratified breast screening, in which women are offered different screening intervals based on their breast cancer risk, has been proposed as a way to improve the benefits of screening in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme (UK-NBSP).
- Closing excerpt
- ImpactImplementation of risk-stratified breast screening in the UK national screening program has the potential to improve cancer detection at a reasonable additional resource use and cost.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (248 words)
BackgroundRisk-stratified breast screening, in which women are offered different screening intervals based on their breast cancer risk, has been proposed as a way to improve the benefits of screening in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme (UK-NBSP). The aim of this study was to explore the cost-effectiveness of potential risk-stratified breast screening strategies in the UK-NBSP.MethodsAn existing validated discrete event simulation model (MANC-RISK-SCREEN) was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 3 risk-stratified NBSPs (risk 1, risk 2, and risk 3) compared with the current UK-NBSP, 2-yearly screening, and no screening [lifetime horizon; health service perspective; costs (£; at 2024 prices)]. MANC-RISK-SCREEN was modified to account for bias in risk prediction and allocation to risk categories (risk misclassification). Uncertainty in the results due to model inputs was quantified using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses.ResultsAt a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life year, 2-yearly screening was most likely to be cost-effective, followed by a risk-stratified approach whereby women at high risk (>8% 10-year risk) were screened annually and women at moderate risk (5%-8% 10-year risk) biannually. When risk misclassification was accounted for, the ranking of risk-stratified screening strategies improved relative to universal strategies.ConclusionsIf 2-yearly screening is infeasible due to resource constraints, implementing a risk-stratified approach in the existing NBSP in the United Kingdom would be a cost-effective use of healthcare resources.ImpactImplementation of risk-stratified breast screening in the UK national screening program has the potential to improve cancer detection at a reasonable additional resource use and cost.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42536349 · DOI · PMC13628088
Screen-Detected Coeliac Disease in a Nationally Representative Cohort: Health Indicators, Long-Term Outcomes and Mortality [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundPopulation-based screening for coeliac disease could reduce underdiagnosis, but benefits and harms remain debated.
- Closing excerpt
- The results suggest a favourable benefit-harm balance for population-based screening.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (188 words)
BackgroundPopulation-based screening for coeliac disease could reduce underdiagnosis, but benefits and harms remain debated.AimWe studied health outcomes in screen-detected coeliac disease patients at diagnosis and following a long-term gluten-free diet.MethodsData were collected from Health 2000 and 2011 studies representing the Finnish population. Coeliac disease was screened in 6339 individuals by transglutaminase and endomysial antibodies, with dual seropositivity as the diagnostic criterion, histologically validated in this cohort. Survey-weighted analyses enabled population-level results. The follow-up cohort comprised those participating in both time points. Mortality was assessed between 2000 and 2017.ResultsAt screening, 92 (1.5%) undiagnosed coeliac disease patients and 6216 non-coeliac controls were identified. Patients were less often smokers (11% vs. 22%, p = 0.014), more often had a history of pre-eclampsia (13% vs. 5%, p = 0.037) and anaemia (14% vs. 6%, p = 0.012), and lower ferritin (29 vs. 68 ng/mL, p ConclusionsNationally screened adults with undiagnosed coeliac disease showed iron deficiency and anaemia. Long-term dietary treatment did not adversely affect quality of life or cardiometabolic health and may prevent complications. Furthermore, mortality was comparable to the general population. The results suggest a favourable benefit-harm balance for population-based screening.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42573482 · DOI · PMC13651919
Risk-Guided Screening for Atrial Fibrillation Using Electronic Health Records [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundScreening for atrial fibrillation (AF) on the basis of AF risk may be more effective.
- Closing excerpt
- 0, identifies a high-risk subpopulation for AF diagnosis among patients at elevated risk of stroke and could enable scalable, EHR-driven, risk-guided AF screening.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (357 words)
BackgroundScreening for atrial fibrillation (AF) on the basis of AF risk may be more effective. We aimed to develop, externally validate, and prospectively test a machine learning prediction model using electronic health records (EHRs) to guide AF screening.MethodsWe developed and validated a random forest prediction model for new AF within 6 months, using age, sex, and 10 comorbidities (Future Innovations in Novel Detection of Atrial Fibrillation [FIND-AF] 2.0) in EHRs in the United Kingdom (n=2 081 139), Japan (n=7 795 244), Israel (n=2 166 795), Canada (n=627 919), and China (n=149 145). We conducted a prospective study where participants ≥30 years old without AF and with a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 in men and ≥3 in women, stratified by FIND-AF 2.0 into high and low risk, undertook 4 ECG recordings per day for 3 weeks using a handheld ECG recorder, with a primary outcome of newly diagnosed AF. We estimated stroke risk associated with nonanticoagulated AF in patients with high FIND-AF 2.0 risk in the FinACAF (Finnish Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation) registry of patients with AF (n=229 565).ResultsFIND-AF 2.0 was applicable to all EHRs and showed good to excellent prediction performance (United Kingdom: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.819 [95% CI, 0.809-0.829]; Israel: AUROC, 0.835 [95% CI, 0.828-0.842]; Japan: AUROC, 0.751 [95% CI, 0.745-0.757]; Canada: AUROC, 0.747 [95% CI, 0.741-0.753]; China: AUROC, 0.753 [95% CI, 0.725-0.771]), with AUROC>0.7 in men and women in all cohorts, and improved performance compared with CHA2DS2-VASc and C2HEST (coronary artery disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [1 point each]; hypertension [1 point]; elderly [age ≥75 years, 2 points]; systolic HF [2 points]; thyroid disease [hyperthyroidism, 1 point]). Of 1923 participants from 15 sites in the prospective study (mean age, 70.2 [SD 9.4] years), with a mean of 74.8 (SD, 19.4) ECG recordings, AF was diagnosed in 5 of 902 (0.6%) with low FIND-AF 2.0 risk and 46 of 1021 (4.5%) with high FIND-AF 2.0 risk (odds ratio, 8.46 [95% CI, 3.35-21.40], PConclusionsThe EHR-based machine learning model, FIND-AF 2.0, identifies a high-risk subpopulation for AF diagnosis among patients at elevated risk of stroke and could enable scalable, EHR-driven, risk-guided AF screening.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42517218 · DOI · PMC13506190
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Accuracy of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression: individual participant data meta-analysis [4]
- Research article The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review [5]
- Research article A re-examination of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) cutoff scores [6]
- Research article Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses [7]
- Research article Cognitive Tests to Detect Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [8]
- Research article Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis [9]
References
- Wright SJ, Hilton J, Rogers G, Gray E, Donten A, McWilliams L, et al.. Implementing a Risk-Stratified National Breast Screening Programme in the United Kingdom: A Model-Based Cost-effectiveness Analysis. . 2026. PMID 42536349 · DOI · PMC13628088
- Ahonen I, Kurppa K, Huhtala H, Kaukinen K, Kivelä L, Taavela J. Screen-Detected Coeliac Disease in a Nationally Representative Cohort: Health Indicators, Long-Term Outcomes and Mortality. . 2026. PMID 42573482 · DOI · PMC13651919
- Nadarajah R, Wu J, Wahab A, Reynolds C, Haris M, Joseph T, et al.. Risk-Guided Screening for Atrial Fibrillation Using Electronic Health Records. . 2026. PMID 42517218 · DOI · PMC13506190
- Levis B, Benedetti A, Thombs BD, DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) Collaboration. Accuracy of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for screening to detect major depression: individual participant data meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019. PMID 30967483 · DOI · PMC6454318
- Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012. PMID 23117178 · DOI
- Carson N, Leach L, Murphy KJ. A re-examination of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) cutoff scores. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018. PMID 28731508 · DOI
- Arbyn M, Smith SB, Temin S, Sultana F, Castle P, Collaboration on Self-Sampling and HPV Testing. Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses. BMJ. 2018. PMID 30518635 · DOI · PMC6278587
- Tsoi KK, Chan JY, Hirai HW, Wong SY, Kwok TC. Cognitive Tests to Detect Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2015. PMID 26052687 · DOI
- Ilic D, Djulbegovic M, Jung JH, Hwang EC, Zhou Q, Cleves A, et al.. Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018. PMID 30185521 · DOI · PMC6283370
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-29.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.