ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2009
Effectiveness of a provider reminder on fecal occult blood test follow-up.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to Improve Follow-up of Positive Results on Fecal Blood Tests: A Systematic Review.Annals of internal medicine · 2017Pooled it
- What Multilevel Interventions Do We Need to Increase the Colorectal Cancer Screening Rate to 80%?Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2021Review
- A centrally generated primary care physician audit report does not improve colonoscopy uptake after a positive result on a fecal occult blood test in Ontario's ColonCancerCheck program.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2017Article
- Mailed participant reminders are associated with improved colonoscopy uptake after a positive FOBT result in Ontario's ColonCancerCheck program.Implementation science : IS · 2015Article
- Organizational predictors of colonoscopy follow-up for positive fecal occult blood test results: an observational study.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2015Observational
- Bringing an organizational perspective to the optimal number of colorectal cancer screening options debate.Journal of general internal medicine · 2012Review
- Lack of follow-up after fecal occult blood testing in older adults: inappropriate screening or failure to follow up?Archives of internal medicine · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the impact of an electronic reminder upon the timeliness and proportion of patients referred for evaluation of a positive fecal occult blood test and receipt of colonoscopy.
methodsOutpatients (468) with a positive occult blood test were prospectively identified and had a note entered into their electronic medical record prompting their provider to act upon this result. The results were compared to 634 control patients from the prior year.
resultsThe intervention was associated with a 20.3% absolute increase in gastroenterology consultation within 14 days (P < 0.001) and significantly prompter consultation. The median time to colonoscopy decreased by 38 days during the intervention (P = <0.0001). A multivariable model found that the intervention was significantly associated with shorter time to consultation and colonoscopy.
conclusionA simple electronic reminder is associated with a significant improvement in the proportion of patients referred for, and timeliness of, evaluation of a positive FOBT.
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.