Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23357561›Full record

Trial reportContemporary clinical trials2013

Enhancing cancer screening in primary care: rationale, design, analysis plan, and recruitment results.

David M Murray, Mira L Katz, Doug M Post, Michael L Pennell, Gregory S Young, Cathy M Tatum, Electra D Paskett

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Contemporary clinical trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Assessing Colorectal Cancer Screening Barriers by Two Methods.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David M MurrayBiostatistics and Bioinformatics Branch, Division of Epidemiology, Statistics and Prevention Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD 20892, USA. david.murray2@nih.gov
Mira L Katz
Doug M Post
Michael L Pennell
Gregory S Young
Cathy M Tatum
Electra D Paskett
The Ohio State University · USEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development · US

Funding

Translational Therapeutics Research Program (TT)P30CA016058 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Jennifer A. Woyach · 1985 to 2026
$132.3M
The Ohio State University Center for Clinical and Translational Science (UL1)UL1TR000090 · NCATS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI JACKSON, REBECCA D · 2012 to 2013
$7.9M
Enhancing Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary CareR01CA116487 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI PASKETT, ELECTRA D. · 2007 to 2011
$2.2M
Patient Activation To Increase Colon Cancer ScreeningK07CA107079 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI KATZ, MIRA L · 2005 to 2009
$783k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000090NCI NIH HHS K07 CA107079NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016058NCI NIH HHS R01 CA116487
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading type of cancer and the third leading cause of cancer death in the United States. National policy-making organizations recognize and support a variety of CRC screening strategies among average-risk adults aged 50 and older based on strong evidence showing that screening decreases mortality from CRC and can also reduce the incidence of the disease. The goal of this study was to test a multi-level stepped intervention to increase CRC screening rates. We used a group-randomized trial design where the units of assignment were clinics and the units of observation were eligible patients receiving care at those clinics, with stratified random assignment of clinics to study conditions. The primary analysis was planned as a mixed-model logistic regression to account for the expected positive intraclass correlation associated with clinics. Our recruitment experience reflected the difficulties of conducting research in the real world where changes in economic conditions, staff turnover/layoff, inadequate medical records, and poor acceptance of research can significantly impact study plans. It demonstrated the problems that can emerge when procedures used in the study depart from those used in the pilot work to generate parameter estimates for power analysis. It also demonstrated the importance of allowing for attrition at the group and patient levels so that if recruitment falls short, it is possible to maintain adequate power with only a slight increase in the detectable difference. This experience should assist others planning group-randomized trials, whether in cancer screening or in other areas.

Indexed as

AgedAmbulatory Care FacilitiesColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEducation, Medical, ContinuingFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePatient Education as TopicPatient SelectionPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'

Identifiers

PMID23357561
PMCPMC3601898
OpenAlexW2001531629

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.