Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20213208›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2010

A randomized controlled trial of a multilevel intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening among Latino immigrants in a primary care facility.

Abraham Aragones, Mark D Schwartz, Nirav R Shah, Francesca M Gany

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions for improving health literacy in migrants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Abraham AragonesDownstate Medical Center, School of Public Health, State University of New York, 450 Clarkson Av, box 43, Brooklyn, NY 11203, USA. abraham.aragones@downstate.edu
Mark D Schwartz
Nirav R Shah
Francesca M Gany
New York University · USSUNY Downstate Health Sciences University · US

Funding

Research Training in Health Protection and PreparednessT01CD000146 · CD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI GOUREVITCH, MARC N · 2004 to 2009
$4.0M
ODCDC CDC HHS T01 CD000146
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLatino immigrants face a higher burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) and screening rates are low.

objectiveTo assess the effectiveness of a multilevel intervention in increasing the rate of CRC screening among Latino immigrants.

designA randomized controlled trial, with randomization at the physician level.

participantsPairs of 65 primary care physicians and 65 Latino immigrant patients participated, 31 in the intervention and 34 in the control group.

interventionCRC educational video in Spanish on a portable personal digital video display device accompanied by a brochure with key information for the patient, and a patient-delivered paper-based reminder for their physician. MEASUREMENTS: Completed CRC screening, physician recommendation for CRC screening, and patient adherence to physician recommended CRC screening.

resultsThe overall rate of completed screening for CRC was 55% for the intervention and 18% for the control group (p = 0.002). Physicians recommended CRC screening for 61% of patients in the intervention group versus 41% in the control group (p = 0.08). Of those that received a recommendation, 90% in the intervention group adhered to it versus 26% in the control group (p = 0.007).

conclusionsThe intervention was successful in increasing rates of completed CRC screening primarily through increasing adherence after screening was recommended. Additional efforts should focus on developing new strategies to increase physician recommendation for CRC screening, while employing effective patient adherence interventions.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningColorectal NeoplasmsCultural CompetencyEmigrants and ImmigrantsFemaleHispanic or LatinoHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPrimary Health CareUrban Population

Identifiers

PMID20213208
PMCPMC2869418
OpenAlexW2089806037

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.