Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19022840›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2008

Test, episode, and programme sensitivities of screening for colorectal cancer as a public health policy in Finland: experimental design.

Nea Malila, Tiina Oivanen, Outi Malminiemi, Matti Hakama

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. ColonCancerCheck primary care invitation pilot project: patient perceptions.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2013
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nea MalilaFinnish Cancer Registry, Pieni Roobertinkatu 9, 00130 Helsinki, Finland. nea.malila@cancer.fi
Tiina Oivanen
Outi Malminiemi
Matti Hakama
Cancer Society of Finland · FIFinnish Cancer Registry · FIPirkanmaa Hospital District · FITampere University · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo report the sensitivities of the faecal occult blood test, screening episode, and screening programme for colorectal cancer and the benefits of applying a randomised design at the implementation phase of a new public health policy.

designExperimental design incorporated in public health evaluation using randomisation at individual level in the target population.

setting161 of the 431 Finnish municipalities in 2004-6.

participants106 000 adults randomised to screening or control arms. In total, 52 998 adults aged 60-64 in the screening arm received faecal occult blood test kits.

main outcome measuresTest, episode, and programme sensitivities estimated by the incidence method and corrected for selective attendance and overdiagnosis.

resultsThe response for screening was high overall (70.8%), and significantly better in women (78.1%) than in men (63.3%). The incidence of cancer in the controls was somewhat higher in men than in women (103 v 93 per 100 000 person years), which was not true for interval cancers (42 v 49 per 100 000 person years). The sensitivity of the faecal occult blood test was 54.6%. Only a few interval cancers were detected among those with positive test results, hence the episode sensitivity of 51.3% was close to the test sensitivity. At the population level the sensitivity of the programme was 37.5%.

conclusionsAlthough relatively low, the sensitivity of screening for colorectal cancer with the faecal occult blood test in Finland was adequate. An experimental design is a prerequisite for evaluation of such a screening programme because the effectiveness of preventing deaths is likely to be small and results may otherwise remain inconclusive. Thus, screening for colorectal cancer using any primary test modality should be launched in a public health programme with randomisation of the target population at the implementation phase.

Indexed as

Occult BloodColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleFinlandHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID19022840
PMCPMC2593450
OpenAlexW2067818980

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.