Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796760›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, hemoccult.

B P Towler, L Irwig, P Glasziou, D Weller, J Kewenter

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Determinants of colorectal cancer screening in primary care.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2008
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Colorectal cancer.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2015
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

B P TowlerDept of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia, 23 Forth St, Mackay, Queensland, Australia, 4740. bernie.towler@ m130.aone.net.au
L Irwig
P Glasziou
D Weller
J Kewenter
James Cook University · AUSahlgrenska University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer is a leading cause of illness and death in the Western world. In Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, it is the second commonest cancer for women after breast cancer (age-standardised incidence 22-33 per 100,000), and men after prostate or lung cancer (age-standardised incidence 31-47 per 100,000) (Jeffs et al, 1996; Parkin et al, 1992). Just under half of all persons affected will die from their disease (Jeffs et al, 1996; Parkin et al, 1992) The human and financial costs of this disease have prompted considerable research efforts to evaluate the ability of screening tests to detect the cancer at an early curable stage. Tests which have been considered for screening include faecal occult blood tests, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy.

objectivesTo determine whether screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult reduces colorectal cancer mortality and to consider the benefits and harms of screening. SEARCH STRATEGY: Published and unpublished data for this review were identified by: * retrieving studies included in a systematic review conducted by some of the authors in 1995, * searches of MEDLINE, Current Contents and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, * writing to trial lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: All controlled trials of screening for colorectal cancer using Hemoccult were eligible for inclusion in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors. Data analysis was performed using the group subjects were randomised to ('intention to screen'), whether or not they were ever screened. To estimate the effect of Hemoccult screening on colorectal cancer mortality, we calculated relative risks and risk differences for each trial, and then overall, using fixed and random effects models and tested for heterogeneity of effects. We calculated summary measures of effect including all trials and also for just the randomised controlled trials. We also calculated a summary measure of effect, adjusted for attendance at screening in each trial (not shown in Meta-view). MAIN

resultsMeta-analysis of mortality results from the randomised controlled trials shows that those allocated to screening had a reduction in colorectal cancer mortality of 16% (RR 0.84, CI: 0.77-0.93). When adjusted for screening attendance in the individual studies, the mortality reduction is 23% (RR 0.77, CI: 0.57-0.89). Overall, if 10 000 people were offered a biennial Hemoccult screening program and two-thirds attended for at least one Hemoccult test, there would be 8.5 deaths (CI: 3.6-13.5) from colorectal cancer prevented over 10 years. However, the screening program would also result in 2 800 participants having at least one colonoscopy, if screening harms from the Minnesota trial are considered, and there would be 3.4 colonoscopy complications (perforation or haemorrhage). If screening harms from the Gothenburg trial are considered, approximately 600 participants would need at least one sigmoidoscopy and double contrast barium enema, resulting in 1.8 perforations or haemorrhages. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsScreening benefits include reduction in colorectal cancer mortality, possible reduction in cancer incidence through detection and removal of colorectal adenomas and potentially, treatment of early colorectal cancers may involve less invasive surgery. Harmful effects of screening include the physical complications of colonoscopy, disruption to lifestyle, stress and discomfort of testing and investigations, and the anxiety caused by falsely positive screening tests. Although screening benefits are likely to outweigh harms for populations at increased risk of colorectal cancer, we need more information about the harmful effects of screening, the community's responses to screening and screening costs for different health care systems before widespread screening can be recommended.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningOccult BloodColorectal NeoplasmsHumans

Identifiers

PMID10796760
OpenAlexW4251378655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.