Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23868476›Full record

ArticleCancer2013

Clinical outcomes from the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program.

Laura C Seeff, Janet Royalty, William E Helsel, William G Kammerer, Jennifer E Boehm, Diane M Dwyer, William R Howe, Djenaba Joseph, Dorothy S Lane, Melinda Laughlin and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Patients' perceptions of colorectal cancer screening tests and preparatory education in federally qualified health centers.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2015
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

18 authors.

Laura C SeeffDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3717, USA. lseeff@cdc.gov
Janet Royalty
William E Helsel
William G Kammerer
Jennifer E Boehm
Diane M Dwyer
William R Howe
Djenaba Joseph
Dorothy S Lane
Melinda Laughlin
Melissa Leypoldt
Steven C Marroulis
Cynthia A Mattingly
Marion R Nadel
Ellen Phillips-Angeles
Tanner J Rockwell
A Blythe Ryerson
Florence K L Tangka

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999NIAAA NIH HHS RFA AA030
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among US men and women. Screening rates have been slow to increase, and disparities in screening remain.

methodsTo address the disparity in screening for this high burden but largely preventable disease, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) designed and established a 4-year Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) in 2005 for low-income, under-insured or uninsured men and women aged 50 to 64 years in 5 participating US program sites. In this report, the authors describe the design of the CRCSDP and the overall clinical findings and screening test performance characteristics, including the positive fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) rate; the rates of polyp, adenoma, and cancer detection with FOBTs and colonoscopies; and the positive predicative value for polyps, adenomas, and cancers.

resultsIn total, 5233 individuals at average risk and increased risk were screened for colorectal cancer across all 5 sites, including 44% who underwent screening FOBT and 56% who underwent screening colonoscopy. Overall, 77% of all individuals screened were women. The FOBT positivity rate was 10%. Results from all screening or diagnostic colonoscopies indicated that 75% had negative results and required a repeat screening colonoscopy in 10 years, 16% had low-risk adenomas and required surveillance colonoscopy in 5 to 10 years, 8% had high-risk adenomas and required surveillance colonoscopy in 3 years, and 0.6% had invasive cancers.

conclusionsThis report documents the successes and challenges in implementing the CDC's CRCSDP and describes the clinical outcomes of this 4-year initiative, the patterns in program uptake and test choice, and the comparative test performance characteristics of FOBT versus colonoscopy. Patterns in final outcomes from the follow-up of positive screening tests were consistent with national registry data.

Indexed as

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.ColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPovertyUnited Statescancer screening programscolonoscopycolorectal cancer preventioncolorectal cancer screeningfecal occult blood testing

Identifiers

PMID23868476
PMCPMC12293173

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.