Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16423097›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2005

Promoting use of colorectal cancer screening tests. Can we change physician behavior?

Judith M E Walsh, René Salazar, Jonathan P Terdiman, Ginny Gildengorin, Eliseo J Pérez-Stable

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Colorectal cancer video for the deaf community: a randomized control trial.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2010
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. ColonCancerCheck primary care invitation pilot project: patient perceptions.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2013
    Article
  19. A brief overview of academic detailing in Canada: Another role for pharmacists.Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC · 2012
    Article
  20. Multilevel interventions: measurement and measures.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2012
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Judith M E WalshDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. Jmwalsh@itsa.ucsf.edu
René Salazar
Jonathan P Terdiman
Ginny Gildengorin
Eliseo J Pérez-Stable

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized despite evidence that screening reduces mortality.

objectiveTo assess the effect of an intervention targeting physicians and their patients on rates of CRC screening.

designA randomized clinical trial of community physicians and their patients.

participantsNinety-four community primary care physicians randomly assigned to an intervention consisting of academic detailing and direct mailings to patients or a control group. Patients aged 50 to 79 years in the intervention group physicians received a letter from their physician, a brochure on CRC screening, and a packet of fecal occult blood test (FOBT) cards. MEASUREMENTS: After 1 year we measured receipt of the following: (1) FOBT in the past 2 years, (2) flexible sigmoidoscopy (SIG) or colonoscopy (COL) in the previous 5 years, and (3) any CRC screening. We report the percent change from baseline in both groups.

results9,652 patients were enrolled for 2 years, and 3,732 patients were enrolled for 5 years. There was no increase in any CRC screening that occurred in the intervention group for patients enrolled for 2 years (12.7 increase vs 12.5%, P=.51). Similar results were seen for any CRC screening among patients enrolled for 5 years (9.7% increase vs 8.6%, P=.45). The only outcome on which the intervention had an effect was on patient rates of screening SIG (7.4% increase vs 4.4%, P<.01).

conclusionWith the exception of an increase in rates of SIG in the intervention group, the intervention had no effect on rates of CRC screening. Future interventions should assess innovative approaches to increase rates of CRC screening.

Indexed as

Professional PracticeAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical CompetenceColorectal NeoplasmsEducation, Medical, ContinuingHealth PromotionHumansInformation DisseminationMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPhysicians, Family

Identifiers

PMID16423097
PMCPMC1490293

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.