ReviewWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2013
[International status colorectal cancer screening and quality assurance of screening-colonoscopy].
Review in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bowel cancer is frequent, early stages have much better prognosis and drug treatment of late stages is increasingly very expensive. Screening for colorectal cancer has the potential for both early detection and prevention. For a screening intervention colonoscopy is very invasive and holds the small risk of serious complications. Colonoscopy plays a key role for further diagnosis and intervention in all programs. Current international screening activities are presented. The emerging evidence on effectiveness of screening suggests that all strategies may have similar effect sizes. Participation rates and quality assurance thus are of key importance for realizing potential net health gains. Participation rates are higher for stool tests than for sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. For quality assurance of screening-colonoscopy an established range of quality measures is available. The possibility of systematic quality assurance also in the context of opportunistic screening like in Austria is proven by Germany and Poland.
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.