Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17963520›Full record

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.

Steve Halligan, Richard J Lilford, Jane Wardle, Dion Morton, Pauline Rogers, Katherine Wooldrage, Rob Edwards, Reshma Kanani, Urvi Shah, Wendy Atkin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Diagnosis: CT colonography has finally arrived.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2013
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Current trends in staging rectal cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2011
    Article
  14. Colorectal cancer screening: the role of CT colonography.World journal of gastroenterology · 2010
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Is this the end of an era for conventional diagnostic endoscopy?Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2009
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Steve HalliganDepartment of Specialist Radiology, University College Hospital London, London, UK. s.halligan@ucl.ac.uk
Richard J Lilford
Jane Wardle
Dion Morton
Pauline Rogers
Katherine Wooldrage
Rob Edwards
Reshma Kanani
Urvi Shah
Wendy Atkin
Cancer Research UK · GBSt Mark's Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GBQueen Elizabeth Hospital · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

Department of Health 02/02/01
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID17963520
PMCPMC2174515
OpenAlexW2013373506

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.