Trial reportThe New England journal of medicine2012
Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening.
Trial report in The New England journal of medicine, 2012. 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 7 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 374 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Colorectal Cancer Screening in Average-risk Population: a Multicenter, Randomized Control Trial Comparing Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Testing Versus Colonoscopy.
Uptake to Colorectal Cancer Screening in Familiar-risk Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Immunochemical Fecal Occult Blood Test With Colonoscopy
Usefulness of Fecal Immunochemical Test in the Diagnosis Algorithm of Iron Deficiency Anemia.
Validation of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasm Risk Categories in Screening Colonoscopy and Identification of Biomarkers in a Prospective Cohort in Mexico.
A Non-invasive Gut Microbiome-based Diagnostic Tool for the Screening of Colorectal Cancer
A Gut Microbiome-based Diagnostic Tool for the Screening of Colorectal Cancer
Validation of a Molecular Signature for Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer
Who cites it
374 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 900 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-round performance of colorectal cancer screening programs: a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Guideline
- Experience and satisfaction of participants in colorectal cancer screening programs: a qualitative evidence synthesis.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs in Latin America: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- AGA Clinical Practice Update on Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: Expert Review.Gastroenterology · 2023Guideline
- Screening for colorectal cancer : A recommendation statement of the Austrian National Committee for Cancer Screening.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2023Guideline
- Pooled it
- Is flexible sigmoidoscopy screening associated with reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality? a meta-analysis and systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests versus faecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Selection of patients for large mailed fecal immunochemical test colorectal cancer screening outreach programs: A systematic review.Journal of medical screening · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Genomic and epigenomic biomarkers in colorectal cancer: From diagnosis to therapy.Advances in cancer research · 2021Pooled it
- Colorectal cancer screening for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer or adenomas.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019Pooled it
- Colorectal cancer screening with faecal testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of the role of colonoscopy after an episode of left-sided acute diverticulitis.The British journal of surgery · 2019Pooled it
- The compliance rate for the second diagnostic evaluation after a positive fecal occult blood test: A systematic review and meta-analysis.United European gastroenterology journal · 2019Pooled it
- Comparative Efficacy of 2 L Polyethylene Glycol Alone or With Ascorbic Acid vs. 4 L Polyethylene Glycol for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of 12 Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Guideline
- Long-Term Colorectal Cancer Incidence After Adenoma and Serrated Polyp Removal: Results From the Colonprev Trial.United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Trial
- Colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing versus usual care in diagnostic colorectal cancer screening: the SCREESCO randomized controlled trial.Nature medicine · 2026Trial
314 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by[Not Available].2012
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
42 authors at 18 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are accepted strategies for colorectal-cancer screening in the average-risk population.
methodsIn this randomized, controlled trial involving asymptomatic adults 50 to 69 years of age, we compared one-time colonoscopy in 26,703 subjects with FIT every 2 years in 26,599 subjects. The primary outcome was the rate of death from colorectal cancer at 10 years. This interim report describes rates of participation, diagnostic findings, and occurrence of major complications at completion of the baseline screening. Study outcomes were analyzed in both intention-to-screen and as-screened populations.
resultsThe rate of participation was higher in the FIT group than in the colonoscopy group (34.2% vs. 24.6%, P<0.001). Colorectal cancer was found in 30 subjects (0.1%) in the colonoscopy group and 33 subjects (0.1%) in the FIT group (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 1.64; P=0.99). Advanced adenomas were detected in 514 subjects (1.9%) in the colonoscopy group and 231 subjects (0.9%) in the FIT group (odds ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.97 to 2.69; P<0.001), and nonadvanced adenomas were detected in 1109 subjects (4.2%) in the colonoscopy group and 119 subjects (0.4%) in the FIT group (odds ratio, 9.80; 95% CI, 8.10 to 11.85; P<0.001).
conclusionsSubjects in the FIT group were more likely to participate in screening than were those in the colonoscopy group. On the baseline screening examination, the numbers of subjects in whom colorectal cancer was detected were similar in the two study groups, but more adenomas were identified in the colonoscopy group. (Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00906997.).
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.