Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21561880›Full record

ArticleGut2012

Performance measures in three rounds of the English bowel cancer screening pilot.

S M Moss, C Campbell, J Melia, D Coleman, S Smith, R Parker, P Ramsell, J Patnick, D P Weller

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gut, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Possible missed opportunities for diagnosing colorectal cancer in Dutch primary care: a multimethods approach.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Understanding of a negative bowel screening result and potential impact on future symptom appraisal and help-seeking behaviour: a focus group study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017
    Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors.

S M MossCancer Screening Evaluation Unit, Section of Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, SRD Building, Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK. sue.moss@icr.ac.uk
C Campbell
J Melia
D Coleman
S Smith
R Parker
P Ramsell
J Patnick
D P Weller

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare performance measures across all three rounds of the English bowel cancer screening faecal occult blood test pilot and their relation to social deprivation and ethnicity.

methodsIn each round in three primary care trusts, data for a restricted population of over 48,500 aged 60-69 years were analysed. Individual-based data included postcode linked to area-based data on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2004, and ethnicity. Outcomes were the rates of screening and colonoscopy uptake, positivity and detection of neoplasia (adenomas or bowel cancer) and bowel cancer, and the positive predictive values (PPVs) of a positive test for neoplasia and bowel cancer. Sensitivity was calculated by the proportional incidence method using data on interval cancers identified from cancer registrations.

resultsThe overall uptake rate was 61.8%, 57.0% and 58.7% in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. Although the PPV for cancer decreased over the course of the three rounds (10.9% in the 1st round, 6.5% in 3rd round), the PPV for all neoplasia remained relatively constant (42.6% in 1st round, 36.9% in 3rd round). Deprivation and non-white ethnic background (principally Indian subcontinent in the pilot region) were associated with low screening and colonoscopy uptake rates, and this changed little over the three screening rounds. Uptake was lower in men, although differences in uptake between men and women decreased over time. Non-participation in previous rounds was a strong predictor of low uptake.

conclusionsPerformance measures are commensurate with expectations in a screening programme reaching its third round of screening, but a substantial ongoing effort is needed, particularly to address the effects of deprivation and ethnicity in relation to uptake.

Indexed as

Occult BloodAdenomaAgedColonic NeoplasmsColonoscopyEarly Detection of CancerEnglandFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Acceptance of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID21561880
PMCPMC3230830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.