Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22156981›Full record

Trial reportGut2012

Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests.

Richard F A Logan, Julietta Patnick, Claire Nickerson, Lynn Coleman, Matt D Rutter, Christian von Wagner, English Bowel Cancer Screening Evaluation Committee

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Gut, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04150081 (Endoscopic Versus Surgical Treatment for T1 Colorectal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 212 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
212citing papers in PubMed, 11 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.

NCT04150081 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Treatment for T1 Colorectal Cancer: a Population-based Cohort Study

TypeobservationalSponsorHospital Clinic of BarcelonaRan2019 to 2022Enrolled1,400ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsSurgery or Endoscopic treatment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

212 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Robotic surgery (R-TAMIS): a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Guideline
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

152 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Richard F A LoganDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham Medical School, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK. richard.logan@nottingham.ac.uk
Julietta Patnick
Claire Nickerson
Lynn Coleman
Matt D Rutter
Christian von Wagner
English Bowel Cancer Screening Evaluation Committee

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England began operating in 2006 with the aim of full roll out across England by December 2009. Subjects aged 60-69 are being invited to complete three guaiac faecal occult blood tests (6 windows) every 2 years. The programme aims to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer by 16% in those invited for screening.

methodsAll subjects eligible for screening in the National Health Service in England are included on one database, which is populated from National Health Service registration data covering about 98% of the population of England. This analysis is only of subjects invited to participate in the first (prevalent) round of screening.

resultsBy October 2008 almost 2.1 million had been invited to participate, with tests being returned by 49.6% of men and 54.4% of women invited. Uptake ranged between 55-60% across the four provincial hubs which administer the programme but was lower in the London hub (40%). Of the 1.08 million returning tests 2.5% of men and 1.5% of women had an abnormal test. 17,518 (10,608 M, 6910 F) underwent investigation, with 98% having a colonoscopy as their first investigation. Cancer (n=1772) and higher risk adenomas (n=6543) were found in 11.6% and 43% of men and 7.8% and 29% of women investigated, respectively. 71% of cancers were 'early' (10% polyp cancer, 32% Dukes A, 30% Dukes B) and 77% were left-sided (29% rectal, 45% sigmoid) with only 14% being right-sided compared with expected figures of 67% and 24% for left and right side from UK cancer registration.

conclusionIn this first round of screening in England uptake and fecal occult blood test positivity was in line with that from the pilot and the original European trials. Although there was the expected improvement in cancer stage at diagnosis, the proportion with left-sided cancers was higher than expected.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerOccult BloodAdenomaAgedColonic PolypsColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Acceptance of Health CareState Medicine

Identifiers

PMID22156981
PMCPMC3437782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.