Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23868477›Full record

ArticleCancer2013

Assessing screening quality in the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program.

Marion R Nadel, Janet Royalty, Jean A Shapiro, Djenaba Joseph, Laura C Seeff, Dorothy S Lane, Diane M Dwyer

Open access · greenAbstract 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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Toward the Elimination of Colorectal Cancer Disparities Among African Americans.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2016
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marion R NadelDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, USA. mrn1@cdc.gov
Janet Royalty
Jean A Shapiro
Djenaba Joseph
Laura C Seeff
Dorothy S Lane
Diane M Dwyer
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USMaryland Department of Health · USStony Brook University Hospital · US

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundGaps in screening quality in community practice have been well documented. The authors examined recommended indicators of screening quality in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP), which provided colorectal cancer screening and diagnostic services between 2005 and 2009 for asymptomatic, low-income, underinsured, or uninsured individuals at 5 sites around the United States.

methodsFor each client screened in the CRCSDP, a standardized set of colorectal cancer clinical data elements was collected. Data regarding client age, screening history, risk level, screening test indication, results, and recommendation for the next test were analyzed. For colonoscopies, data were analyzed regarding whether the cecum was reached, bowel preparation was adequate, and identified lesions were completely removed.

resultsOverall, 53% of the fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) (2295 tests) distributed were completed and returned. At the 2 sites with adequate numbers of FOBTs, 77% and 97%, respectively, of clients with positive results received follow-up colonoscopies. Site-specific cecal intubation rates ranged from 90% to 98%. Adenoma detection rates were 32% for men and 21% for women. For approximately one-third of colonoscopies, the recommended interval to the next test was shorter than recommended by national guidelines. At some sites, endoscopists failed to report on the adequacy of bowel preparation and completeness of polyp removal.

conclusionsCecal intubation rates and adenoma detection rates met recommended levels. The authors identified the need for improvements in the follow-up of positive FOBTs, documentation of important elements in colonoscopy reports, and recommendations for rescreening or surveillance intervals after colonoscopy. Monitoring quality indicators is important to improve screening quality.

Indexed as

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.ColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccult BloodQuality Indicators, Health CareUnited Statescolonoscopycolorectal neoplasmsfecal occult bloodhealth caremass screeningquality indicators

Identifiers

PMID23868477
PMCPMC4479171
OpenAlexW1591242359

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.