Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20808257›Full record

Trial reportMedical care2010

Colorectal cancer screening in primary care: translating research into practice.

Steven Ornstein, Lynne S Nemeth, Ruth G Jenkins, Paul J Nietert

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical care, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 6 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.

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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Patient Beliefs About Colon Cancer Screening.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2016
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Cancer Screening after the Adoption of Paid-Sick-Leave Mandates.The New England journal of medicine · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  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.

Steven OrnsteinDepartment of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA. ornstesm@musc.edu
Lynne S Nemeth
Ruth G Jenkins
Paul J Nietert

Funding

COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING IN PRIMARY CARE PRACTICER01CA112389 · NCI · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI ORNSTEIN, STEVEN M · 2006 to 2009
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS 1 RO1 CA 112389-01NCI NIH HHS R01 CA112389
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for all adults 50 to 75 years old, yet only slightly more than one-half of eligible people are current with screening. Because CRC screening is usually initiated upon recommendations of primary care physicians, interventions in these settings are needed to improve screening.

objectivesTo assess the impact of a quality improvement intervention combining electronic medical record based audit and feedback, practice site visits for academic detailing and participatory planning, and "best-practice" dissemination on CRC screening in primary care practice. RESEARCH

designTwo-year group randomized trial. SUBJECTS: Physicians, midlevel providers, and clinical staff members in 32 primary care practices in 19 States caring for 68,150 patients 50 years of age or older. MEASURES: Proportion of active patients up-to-date (UTD) with CRC screening (colonoscopy within 10 years, sigmoidoscopy within 5 years, or at home fecal occult blood testing within 1 year) and having screening recommended within past year among those not UTD.

resultsPatients 50 to 75 years in intervention practices exhibited significantly greater improvement (from 60.7% to 71.2%) in being UTD with CRC screening than patients in control practices (from 57.7% to 62.8%), the adjusted difference being 4.9% (95% confidence interval, 3.8%-6.1%). Recommendations for screening also increased more in intervention practices with the adjusted difference being 7.9% (95% confidence interval, 6.3%-9.5%). There was wide interpractice variation in CRC screening throughout the intervention.

conclusionsA multicomponent quality improvement intervention in practices that use electronic medical record can improve CRC screening.

Indexed as

AgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsConfidence IntervalsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGuideline AdherenceHealth Plan ImplementationHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOdds RatioPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareQuality Indicators, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID20808257
PMCPMC4107393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.