Trial reportContemporary clinical trials2013
Enhancing cancer screening in primary care: rationale, design, analysis plan, and recruitment results.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Colorectal Cancer Screening Barriers by Two Methods.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018Trial
- Implementation successes and challenges in participating in a pragmatic study to improve colon cancer screening: perspectives of health center leaders.Translational behavioral medicine · 2017Trial
- Recruiting community health centers into pragmatic research: Findings from STOP CRC.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2016Trial
- Malaria prevalence metrics in low- and middle-income countries: an assessment of precision in nationally-representative surveys.Malaria journal · 2017Article
- Testing Interventions to Motivate and Educate (TIME): A multi-level intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening.Preventive medicine reports · 2015Article
- Mother-Daughter Dyad Recruitment and Cancer Intervention Challenges in an African American Sample.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.