SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2012
Preference for colonoscopy versus computerized tomographic colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review.Journal of medical screening · 2023Pooled it
- Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2017Pooled it
- Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline.European radiology · 2015Guideline
- Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments.The patient · 2014Pooled it
- Post-operative colorectal cancer surveillance: preference for optical colonoscopy over computerized tomographic colonography.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2019Trial
- Non- or full-laxative CT colonography vs. endoscopic tests for colorectal cancer screening: a randomised survey comparing public perceptions and intentions to undergo testing.European radiology · 2014Trial
- Acceptance and Preference of Computed Tomographic Colonography and Colonoscopy: Results of a Nationwide Multicenter Comparative Questionnaire Survey in Japan.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2024Article
- Preference and Experience of Colonic Examination for Participants Presenting to Hospitals with a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test Result.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- [Colorectal cancer: role of imaging in screening].Der Radiologe · 2019Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening-Who, How, and When?Clinical endoscopy · 2018Review
- Colorectal cancer, screening and primary care: A mini literature review.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Review
- Insurance Coverage for CT Colonography Screening: Impact on Overall Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates.Radiology · 2017Article
- Patient experience of CT colonography and colonoscopy after fecal occult blood test in a national screening programme.European radiology · 2017Article
- Comparison of patients' tolerance between computed tomography enterography and double-balloon enteroscopy.Patient preference and adherence · 2017Article
- CT colonography for population screening of colorectal cancer: hints from European trials.The British journal of radiology · 2016Review
- The potential of imaging techniques as a screening tool for colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.The British journal of radiology · 2016Article
- Patient willingness for repeat screening and preference for CT colonography and optical colonoscopy in ACRIN 6664: the National CT Colonography trial.Patient preference and adherence · 2015Article
- Article
- Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) has attracted considerable attention. In order to better understand patient preferences for CTC versus colonoscopy, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature. Data sources included published studies, abstracts and book chapters, in any language, with publication dates from 1995 through February 2012, and with prospective or retrospective enrollment of diagnostic or screening patients who had undergone both procedures and explicit assessment of their preference for colonoscopy versus CTC. A predefined algorithm identified eligible studies using computer and hand searches performed by two independent investigators. We used a mixed effects model to pool preference differences (defined as the proportion of subjects who preferred CTC minus the proportion who preferred colonoscopy for each study). Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 5616 subjects. In 16 of these studies, patients preferred CTC over colonoscopy, while colonoscopy was preferred in three studies. Due to the high degree of heterogeneity, an overall pooled preference difference was not calculated. Stratified analysis revealed that studies published in radiology journals (preference difference 0.590 [95 % CI 0.485, 0.694]) seemed more likely than studies in gastroenterology (0.218 [-0.015-0.451]) or general medicine journals (-0.158 [-0.389-0.072]) to report preference for CTC (p<0.001). Studies by radiology authors showed a trend towards stronger preference for CTC compared with studies by gastroenterology authors. Symptomatic patients expressed no preference, but screening patients preferred CTC. There was no difference in preferences between studies using "masked" and "unmasked" preference ascertainment methods. Three studies featuring limited bowel preparations for CTC reported marked preference for CTC. There was no evidence of publication bias, while cumulative and exclusion analysis did not show any temporal trend or dominant study. Limitations included data heterogeneity and preference ascertainment limitations. In conclusion, most included studies reported preference for CTC. On stratified analysis, screening patients preferred CTC while diagnostic patients showed no preference. Studies published in radiology journals showed significantly stronger preference for CTC compared with studies in gastroenterology or general medicine journals.
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.