ArticleCancer2013
Clinical outcomes from the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program.
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The compliance rate for the second diagnostic evaluation after a positive fecal occult blood test: A systematic review and meta-analysis.United European gastroenterology journal · 2019Pooled it
- A culturally and linguistically salient pilot intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening among Latinos receiving care in a Federally Qualified Health Center.Health education research · 2019Trial
- Estimating the long-term health impact and program cost-effectiveness of providing direct screening services to low-income, medically underserved patients through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP).Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Barriers to completing colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test.Israel journal of health policy research · 2021Article
- Variations in Screening Quality in a Federal Colorectal Cancer Screening Program for the Uninsured.Preventing chronic disease · 2019Article
- Quantitative proteomic profiling of paired cancerous and normal colon epithelial cells isolated freshly from colorectal cancer patients.Proteomics. Clinical applications · 2017Article
- Colorectal cancer screening: Estimated future colonoscopy need and current volume and capacity.Cancer · 2016Article
- 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 · 2015Article
- Developments in Screening Tests and Strategies for Colorectal Cancer.BioMed research international · 2015Review
- Assessing screening quality in the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program.Cancer · 2013Article
- Article
- Article
- Implementing the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program: wisdom from the field.Cancer · 2013Article
- Clinical costs of colorectal cancer screening in 5 federally funded demonstration programs.Cancer · 2013Article
- Costs of planning and implementing the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program.Cancer · 2013Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
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
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.