ReviewInternational journal of colorectal disease2010
Population-based screening for colorectal cancer with faecal occult blood test--do we really have enough evidence?
Review in International journal of colorectal disease, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios of fecal occult blood test for the detection of colorectal cancer in hospital settings.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2015Article
- Different standards for healthy screenees than patients in routine clinics?World journal of gastroenterology · 2013Review
- Application of quantitative estimates of fecal hemoglobin concentration for risk prediction of colorectal neoplasia.World journal of gastroenterology · 2013Article
- Marginal public health gain of screening for colorectal cancer: modelling study, based on WHO and national databases in the Nordic countries.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2013Article
- Genetic and epigenetic traits as biomarkers in colorectal cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2011Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPopulation-based randomised controlled trials (RCT) have shown that invitation to biennial screening with faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) during 10 or more years reduced colorectal cancer-specific mortality. These results have stimulated plans to introduce mass screening in various countries; however, none of these trials has been able to show any reduction of total mortality, which should be expected with reduced disease-specific mortality in a RCT.
methodsThe aim of this review is to analyse, in more detail, the findings in these trials. The results of the trials have, in this review, been systematised and discussed in the context of potential bias, validity and effectiveness.
resultsIt is found that the reduced cancer-specific mortality is modest and that the clinical significance may be discussed. The number of persons needed to be invited for multiple screening rounds to avoid one death in colorectal cancer (CRC) is high, ranging from about 600 to 1,200. A remarkable finding is that only one fourth of the carcinomas in those invited to the screening were actually detected by this intervention. The absence of reduced total mortality in all series is a serious problem and evokes questions about the validity in determination of cause of death. None of these trials showed any effect on incidence of CRC by removal of precancerous adenomas.
conclusionsIt seems reasonable to conclude that the scientific evidence to support introduction of population-based screening programmes with FOBT appears not yet strong enough. In addition, harm/benefit and cost/effectiveness ratios are not well determined.
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.