Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17311019›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2007

Gender differences in colorectal cancer: implications for age at initiation of screening.

H Brenner, M Hoffmeister, V Arndt, U Haug

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

98 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

H BrennerDivision of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research, German Cancer Research Center, Bergheimer Strasse 20, D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany. h.brenner@dkfz-heidelberg.de
M Hoffmeister
V Arndt
U Haug

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is some variation regarding age at initiation of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) between countries, but the same age of initiation is generally recommended for women and men within countries, despite important gender differences in the epidemiology of CRC. We have explored whether, and to what extent, these differences would be relevant regarding age at initiation of CRC screening. Using population-based cancer registry data from the US and national mortality statistics from different countries, we looked at cumulative 10-year incidence and mortality of CRC reached among men at ages 50, 55, and 60, and found that women mainly reached equivalent levels when 4 to 8 years older. The gender differences were remarkably constant across populations and over time. These patterns suggest that gender differentiation of age at initiation may be worthwhile to utilise CRC-screening resources more efficiently.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningSEER ProgramAgedAge of OnsetColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID17311019
PMCPMC2360074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.