Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23597357›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of public health2013

Effectiveness and reach of the FLU-FIT program in an integrated health care system: a multisite randomized trial.

Michael B Potter, Lynn M Ackerson, Vicky Gomez, Judith M E Walsh, Lawrence W Green, Theodore R Levin, Carol P Somkin

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Time to screening in the systems of support to increase colorectal cancer screening trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2014
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Patient Willingness to Use a Pharmacy-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Service: A National Survey of U.S. Adults.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Colorectal Cancer Screening in Average Risk Patients.The Medical clinics of North America · 2017
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael B PotterDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA94143-0900, USA. potterm@fcm.ucsf.edu
Lynn M Ackerson
Vicky Gomez
Judith M E Walsh
Lawrence W Green
Theodore R Levin
Carol P Somkin
UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center · US

Funding

PURCHASE OF LARGE-SCALE FERMENTATION FACILITYS10RR002413 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI DANIELS, LACY · 1985 to 1985
–
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR02413
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe tested the effectiveness of offering home fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) during influenza vaccination clinics to increase colorectal cancer screening (CRCS).

methodsIn a clinical trial at Kaiser Permanente Northern California influenza clinics in Redwood City, Richmond, South San Francisco, Union City, and Fresno, we randomly assigned influenza clinic dates to intervention (FIT offered) or control (FIT not offered) and compared subsequent CRCS activity.

resultsClinic staff provided FITs to 53.9% (1805/3351) of intervention patients aged 50 to 75 years. In the intent-to-treat analysis, 26.9% (900/3351) and 11.7% (336/2884) of intervention and control patients completed an FIT, respectively, within 90 days of vaccination (P ≤ .001). The adjusted odds ratio for completing FIT in the intervention versus the control arm was 2.75 (95% confidence interval = 2.40, 3.16). In the per protocol analysis, 35.4% (648/1830) of patients given FIT and 13.3% (588/4405) of patients not given FIT completed FIT within 90 days of vaccination (P ≤ .001).

conclusionsThis intervention may increase CRCS among those not reached by other forms of CRCS outreach. Future research should include the extent to which these programs can be disseminated and implemented nationally.

Indexed as

AgedCaliforniaColorectal NeoplasmsDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth PromotionHumansInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedOccult BloodProgram EvaluationInfluenza Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID23597357
PMCPMC3670663
OpenAlexW2018907164

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.