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.
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.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.
- Registry-based randomised controlled trials: conduct, advantages and challenges-a systematic review.Trials · 2024Pooled it
- The Accuracy of Fecal Immunochemical Test in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Meta-Analysis.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Guideline
- Trial
- Urinary Volatile Organic Compound Testing in Fast-Track Patients with Suspected Colorectal Cancer.Cancers · 2022Article
- Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on fecal immunochemical test screening uptake and compliance to diagnostic colonoscopy.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021Observational
- Piloting gender-oriented colorectal cancer screening with a faecal immunochemical test: population-based registry study from Finland.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Gender differences in stage at diagnosis and preoperative radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer.BMC cancer · 2020Observational
- The Efficacy of miR-20a as a Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarker for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2019Review
- Delayed Colonoscopy Following a Positive Fecal Test Result and Cancer Mortality.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2019Article
- Effects of Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening on Cancer Incidence and Mortality in a Large Community-Based Population.Gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Interval cancers after negative immunochemical test compared to screen and non-responders' detected cancers in Slovenian colorectal cancer screening programme.Radiology and oncology · 2018Article
- Methods and novel technology for microRNA quantification in colorectal cancer screening.Clinical epigenetics · 2017Review
- Recommendations on Fecal Immunochemical Testing to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Consensus Statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2017Review
- The Usefulness of a Novel Screening Kit for Colorectal Cancer Using the Immunochromatographic Fecal Tumor M2 Pyruvate Kinase Test.Gut and liver · 2015Article
- Effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer with a faecal occult-blood test, in Finland.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2015Article
- Colorectal cancer screening: 20 years of development and recent progress.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- ColonCancerCheck primary care invitation pilot project: patient perceptions.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2013Article
- Individual- and provider-level factors associated with colorectal cancer screening in accordance with guideline recommendation: a community-level perspective across varying levels of risk.BMC public health · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.