ArticleCureus2026
Knowledge and Awareness of Cancer Screening Among the Public in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Awareness and Knowledge of Gastric Cancer in the General Population of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Cancer screening tests discover cancer at early stages, even before symptoms appear. When abnormal tissues or a malignant mass are found early, treatment and cure rates are improved. In later stages, cancer may have grown and metastasized. This study aims to assess knowledge and awareness of cancer screening in Saudi Arabia. Methods A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted among the general population of Saudi Arabia, with a sample of 451 participants. Data were collected through an anonymous online survey addressing sociodemographic information and awareness levels regarding cancer screening. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26 (Released 2018; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), with categorical variables expressed as frequencies and percentages, and numerical data presented as means and standard deviations. The Chi-square test was used to assess correlations, with a p-value of less than 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results This study included a total of 451 participants. The most common age group was 18-29 years (n = 373, 82.7%). Males constituted a slightly higher proportion than females (n = 246, 54.5% vs. n = 205, 45.4%). The majority of participants (n = 369, 81.8%) knew that tests exist for various types of cancer and tumors. Additionally, 426 participants (94.5%) agreed that early detection of cancer helps in its treatment, and 311 (69%) agreed that early detection improves treatment outcomes. Regarding awareness of cancers that can be screened for, breast cancer was the most commonly identified (n = 424, 94%), followed by prostate cancer (n = 271, 60.1%) and colon cancer (n = 270, 59.9%). The prevalence of screening was extremely limited, with only 3.5% (n = 16) having undergone colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy and 4.9% (n = 22) having undergone other forms of colorectal testing. Analysis of the association between participants' sociodemographic characteristics and knowledge of cancer screening tests revealed significant associations between gender, educational level, and employment status and general knowledge and awareness of cancer screening (p < 0.05). Females were more knowledgeable than males (p < 0.001). Similarly, respondents with higher educational levels and students demonstrated higher knowledge levels than other respondents (p = 0.003 and p = 0.02, respectively). Conclusions Awareness of cancer tests and the benefits of early detection was high, particularly for breast, prostate, and colon cancer, yet actual screening rates remained very low. Knowledge was significantly associated with gender, education, and employment status. However, the study is limited by a significant youth bias, as over 80% of participants were aged 18-29, which may affect the generalizability of the findings to older populations who are at higher risk for cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.