ArticleTrials2007
Design of a multicentre randomized trial to evaluate CT colonography versus colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colonic cancer in older symptomatic patients: the SIGGAR study.
Article in Trials, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient acceptability of CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial of symptomatic patients.European radiology · 2011Trial
- Appearances of screen-detected versus symptomatic colorectal cancers at CT colonography.European radiology · 2016Article
- Virtual gastrointestinal colonoscopy in combination with large bowel endoscopy: clinical application.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- CT colonography for investigation of patients with symptoms potentially suggestive of colorectal cancer: a review of the UK SIGGAR trials.The British journal of radiology · 2013Review
- Diagnosis: CT colonography has finally arrived.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2013Article
- Computed tomography colonography: emerging evidence to further support clinical effectiveness.Current opinion in gastroenterology · 2013Review
- Commentary on small bowel imaging in Crohn's disease.Frontline gastroenterology · 2012Article
- Evidence review and status update on computed tomography colonography.Current gastroenterology reports · 2011Review
- Role of CT colonography in symptomatic assessment, surveillance and screening.International journal of colorectal disease · 2011Review
- Colonoscopy for colonic wall thickening at computed tomography: a worthwhile pursuit?Surgical endoscopy · 2011Article
- CT colonography: computer-assisted detection of colorectal cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2011Article
- CT colonography: what the gastroenterologist needs to know.Frontline gastroenterology · 2011Review
- Current trends in staging rectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2011Article
- Colorectal cancer screening: the role of CT colonography.World journal of gastroenterology · 2010Article
- Reduction of perception error by double reporting of minimal preparation CT colon.The British journal of radiology · 2010Article
- Is this the end of an era for conventional diagnostic endoscopy?Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe standard whole-colon tests used to investigate patients with symptoms of colorectal cancer are barium enema and colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is the reference test but is technically difficult, resource intensive, and associated with adverse events, especially in the elderly. Barium enema is safer but has reduced sensitivity for cancer. CT colonography ("virtual colonoscopy") is a newer alternative that may combine high sensitivity for cancer with safety and patient acceptability. The SIGGAR trial aims to determine the diagnostic efficacy, acceptability, and economic costs associated with this new technology.
methodsThe SIGGAR trial is a multi-centre randomised comparison of CT colonography versus standard investigation (barium enema or colonoscopy), the latter determined by individual clinician preference. Diagnostic efficacy for colorectal cancer and colonic polyps measuring 1 cm or larger will be determined, as will the physical and psychological morbidity associated with each diagnostic test, the latter via questionnaires developed from qualitative interviews. The economic costs of making or excluding a diagnosis will be determined for each diagnostic test and information from the trial and other data from the literature will be used to populate models framed to summarise the health effects and costs of alternative approaches to detection of significant colonic neoplasia in patients of different ages, prior risks and preferences. This analysis will focus particularly on the frequency, clinical relevance, costs, and psychological and physical morbidity associated with detection of extracolonic lesions by CT colonography.
resultsRecruitment commenced in March 2004 and at the time of writing (July 2007) 5025 patients have been randomised. A lower than expected prevalence of end-points in the barium enema sub-trial has caused an increase in sample size. In addition to the study protocol, we describe our approach to recruitment, notably the benefits of extensive piloting, the use of a sham-randomisation procedure, which was employed to determine whether centres interested in participating were likely to be effective in practice, and the provision of funding for dedicated sessions for a research nurse at each centre to devote specifically to this trial.
trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN95152621.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.