Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23414648›Full record

Trial reportLancet (London, England)2013

Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial.

Steve Halligan, Kate Wooldrage, Edward Dadswell, Ines Kralj-Hans, Christian von Wagner, Rob Edwards, Guiqing Yao, Clive Kay, David Burling, Omar Faiz and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 169 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. CT colonography: revisited after 30 years.Insights into imaging · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. [CT colonography : Technique and indications].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Steve HalliganUniversity College London, Centre for Medical Imaging, Podium Level 2, 235 Euston Road, London NW1 2BU, UK. s.halligan@ucl.ac.uk
Kate Wooldrage
Edward Dadswell
Ines Kralj-Hans
Christian von Wagner
Rob Edwards
Guiqing Yao
Clive Kay
David Burling
Omar Faiz
Julian Teare
Richard J Lilford
Dion Morton
Jane Wardle
Wendy Atkin
SIGGAR investigators
Imperial College London · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBSt Mark's Hospital · GBBradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14134Cancer Research UK C8171/A10391Department of Health 02/02/01Medical Research Council G0800808
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBarium enema (BE) is widely available for diagnosis of colorectal cancer despite concerns about its accuracy and acceptability. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) might be a more sensitive and acceptable alternative. We aimed to compare CTC and BE for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice.

methodsThis pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for radiological investigation of the colon. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to BE or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621.

findings3838 patients were randomly assigned to receive either BE (n=2553) or CTC (n=1285). 34 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 2527 assigned to BE and 1277 assigned to CTC. The detection rate of colorectal cancer or large polyps was significantly higher in patients assigned to CTC than in those assigned to BE (93 [7.3%] of 1277 vs 141 [5.6%] of 2527, relative risk 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.68; p=0.0390). CTC missed three of 45 colorectal cancers and BE missed 12 of 85. The rate of additional colonic investigation was higher after CTC than after BE (283 [23.5%] of 1206 CTC patients had additional investigation vs 422 [18.3%] of 2300 BE patients; p=0.0003), due mainly to a higher polyp detection rate. Serious adverse events were rare.

interpretationCTC is a more sensitive test than BE. Our results suggest that CTC should be the preferred radiological test for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer.

fundingNIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.

Indexed as

Barium SulfateContrast MediaAgedAged, 80 and overColonic PolypsColonography, Computed TomographicColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEnemaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReferral and ConsultationSensitivity and SpecificityBarium SulfateContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID23414648
OpenAlexW2105180171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.