ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2013
Colorectal cancer screening--optimizing current strategies and new directions.
Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 3 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
95 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled 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
- The efficacy of intraoperative ICG fluorescence angiography on anastomotic leak after resection for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Pooled 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
- Liposomal Delivery of Pyronaridine as a Repurposed Inhibitor of ERCC1/XPF for the Sensitization of Colorectal Cancer Cells to Platinum Chemotherapeutics.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Blood Biomarkers of Glucose Metabolism and Liver Function Modestly Improve Prediction of High-Risk Adenomas.Gastro hep advances · 2026Article
- Review
- Weakly Supervised Gland Segmentation Based on Hierarchical Attention Fusion and Pixel Affinity Learning.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Colorectal Polyp Segmentation Based on Deep Learning Methods: A Systematic Review.Journal of imaging · 2025Review
- Anticancer effects of folic acid-functionalized covalent organic framework containing doxorubicin on SW480 colon cancer cells: a promising tool for drug targeted delivery.BMC biotechnology · 2025Article
- Mechanisms and Strategies to Overcome Drug Resistance in Colorectal Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Leveraging Near-Field Lighting for Monocular Depth Estimation from Endoscopy Videos.Computer vision - ECCV ... : ... European Conference on Computer Vision : proceedings. European Conference on Computer Vision · 2025Article
- A Large Comparative Cohort Study of Colonoscopy in the Elderly: Indications, Outcomes, and Technical Aspects.Cureus · 2025Article
- Association between Endoscopist Volume and Interval Cancers after Colonoscopy: Results from the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea.Cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- Reducing the global cancer burden with gastrointestinal screening: China's 30 years practice.Cancer biology & medicine · 2024Article
- Natural Compounds Targeting the Autophagy Pathway in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- The Effect of Serum Leptin Concentration and Leptin Receptor Expression on Colorectal Cancer.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- CCAT 1- A Pivotal Oncogenic Long Non-Coding RNA in Colorectal Cancer.British journal of biomedical science · 2023Review
- Immune function of colon cancer associated miRNA and target genes.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- circRNA PLOD2 promotes tumorigenesis and Warburg effect in colon cancer by the miR-513a-5p/SIX1/LDHA axis.Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) · 2022Article
- Caffeine and Chlorogenic Acid Combination Attenuate Early-Stage Chemically Induced Colon Carcinogenesis in Mice: Involvement of oncomiR miR-21a-5p.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The first evidence that screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) could effectively reduce mortality dates back 20 years. However, actual population screening has, in many countries, halted at the level of individual testing and discussions on differences between screening tests. With a wealth of new evidence from various community-based studies looking at test uptake, screening-programme organization and the importance of quality assurance, population screening for CRC is now moving into a new realm, promising better results in terms of reducing CRC-specific morbidity and mortality. Such a shift in the paradigm requires a change from opportunistic, individual testing towards organized population screening with comprehensive monitoring and full-programme quality assurance. To achieve this, a combination of factors--including test characteristics, uptake, screenee autonomy, costs and capacity--must be considered. Thus, evidence from randomized trials comparing different tests must be supplemented by studies of acceptance and uptake to obtain the full picture of the effectiveness (in terms of morbidity, mortality and cost) the different strategies have. In this Review, we discuss a range of screening modalities and describe the factors to be considered to achieve a truly effective population CRC screening programme.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23381005What 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.