ArticleBMC cancer2013
Classification tree analysis to enhance targeting for follow-up exam of colorectal cancer screening.
Article in BMC cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between gut microbiota and locomotive syndrome risk in healthy Japanese adults: a cross-sectional study.npj aging · 2024Article
- Demographic and clinical characteristics associated with advanced stage colorectal cancer: a registry-based cohort study in Saudi Arabia.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Florida Populations Most at Risk of Not Being Up to Date With Colorectal Cancer Screening.Preventing chronic disease · 2018Article
- Identification of immune correlates of protection in Shigella infection by application of machine learning.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2017Article
- Organizational predictors of colonoscopy follow-up for positive fecal occult blood test results: an observational study.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2015Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollow-up rate after a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is low worldwide. In order to increase the follow-up rate, segmentation of the target population has been proposed as a promising strategy, because an intervention can then be tailored toward specific subgroups of the population rather than using one type of intervention for all groups. The aim of this study is to identify subgroups that share the same patterns of characteristics related to follow-up exams after FOBT.
methodsThe study sample consisted of 143 patients aged 50-69 years who were requested to undergo follow-up exams after FOBT. A classification tree analysis was performed, using the follow-up rate as a dependent variable and sociodemographic variables, psychological variables, past FOBT and follow-up exam, family history of colorectal cancer (CRC), and history of bowel disease as predictive variables.
resultsThe follow-up rate in 143 participants was 74.1% (n = 106). A classification tree analysis identified four subgroups as follows; (1) subgroup with a high degree of fear of CRC, unemployed and with a history of bowel disease (n = 24, 100.0% follow-up rate), (2) subgroup with a high degree of fear of CRC, unemployed and with no history of bowel disease (n = 17, 82.4% follow-up rate), (3) subgroup with a high degree of fear of CRC and employed (n = 24, 66.7% follow-up rate), and (4) subgroup with a low degree of fear of CRC (n = 78, 66.7% follow-up rate).
conclusionThe identification of four subgroups with a diverse range of follow-up rates for CRC screening indicates the direction to take in future development of an effective tailored intervention strategy.
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.