Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20674774›Full record

Trial reportContemporary clinical trials2010

Systems of support to increase colorectal cancer screening and follow-up rates (SOS): design, challenges, and baseline characteristics of trial participants.

Beverly B Green, C Y Wang, Kathryn Horner, Sheryl Catz, Richard T Meenan, Sally W Vernon, David Carrell, Jessica Chubak, Cynthia Ko, Sharon Laing and 1 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Contemporary clinical trials, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT00697047 (Systems of Support to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-up), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT00697047 nacompletednot on this map

Systems of Support to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-up

TypeinterventionalSponsorKaiser PermanenteRan2008 to 2019Enrolled4,653ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsAutomated Mailing, Automated Mailing Plus Assisted, Auto Plus Assisted Plus Navigation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Time to screening in the systems of support to increase colorectal cancer screening trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2014
    Trial
  11. Strategies to improve repeat fecal occult blood testing cancer screening.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2014
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Power Calculation in 2Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Beverly B GreenGroup Health Permanente, Seattle, WA 98101, United States. green.b@ghc.org
C Y Wang
Kathryn Horner
Sheryl Catz
Richard T Meenan
Sally W Vernon
David Carrell
Jessica Chubak
Cynthia Ko
Sharon Laing
Andy Bogart

Funding

Systems of Support (SOS) to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-upR01CA121125 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GREEN, BEVERLY BETH · 2007 to 2017
$8.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA121125
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening decreases colorectal cancer (CRC) morbidity and mortality, yet remains underutilized. Screening breakdowns arise from lack of uptake and failure to follow-up after a positive screening test.

objectivesSystems of support to increase colorectal cancer screening and follow-up (SOS) is a randomized trial designed to increase: (1) CRC screening and (2) follow-up of positive screening tests. The Chronic Care Model and the Preventive Health Model inform study design.

methodsThe setting is a large nonprofit healthcare organization. In part-1 study, patients age 50-75 due for CRC screening are randomized to one of 4 study conditions. Arm 1 receives usual care. Arm 2 receives automated support (mailed information about screening choices and fecal occult blood tests (FOBT)). Arm 3 receives automated and assisted support (a medical assistant telephone call). Arm 4 receives automated, assisted, and care management support (a registered nurse provides behavioral activation and coordination of care). In part-2, study patients with a positive FOBT or adenomas on flexible sigmoidoscopy are randomized to receive either usual care or nurse care management. Primary outcomes are: 1) the proportion with CRC screening, 2) the proportion with a complete diagnostic evaluation after a positive screening test.

resultsWe sent recruitment letters to 15,414 patients and 4675 were randomized. Randomly assigned treatment groups were similar in age, sex, race, education, self-reported health, and CRC screening history.

conclusionsWe will determine the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of stepped increases in systems of support to increase CRC screening and follow-up after a positive screening test over 2years.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningPatient CompliancePatient SelectionResearch DesignAgedAllied Health PersonnelColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsData CollectionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursing CareNursing Staff, HospitalOccult Blood

Identifiers

PMID20674774
PMCPMC2956868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.