Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24220914›Full record

Trial reportCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2014

Psychological distress after a positive fecal occult blood test result among members of an integrated healthcare delivery system.

Sharon S Laing, Andy Bogart, Jessica Chubak, Sharon Fuller, Beverly B Green

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Depression and Anxiety Are Common Among Patients With Cirrhosis.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Psychosocial consequences of skin cancer screening.Preventive medicine reports · 2018
    Article
  18. The IARC Perspective on Colorectal Cancer Screening.The New England journal of medicine · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Population screening for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations: lessons from qualitative analysis of the screening experience.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sharon S LaingAuthors' Affiliations: Health Promotion Research Center, University of Washington; Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington; Group Health Research Institute, Seattle; and Department of Psychology, Eastern Washington University, Bellevue, Washington.
Andy Bogart
Jessica Chubak
Sharon Fuller
Beverly B Green
Eastern Washington University · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Systems of Support (SOS) to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-upR01CA121125 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GREEN, BEVERLY BETH · 2007 to 2017
$8.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA121125NCI NIH HHS R01CA121125-03S1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer screening (CRCS) reduces morbidity and mortality; however, the positive benefits might be partially offset by long-term distress following positive screening results. We examined relationships among colorectal cancer-specific worry and situational anxiety after positive fecal occult blood tests [FOBT (+)] compared with receipt of negative results.

methodsOf note, 2,260 eligible members of Group Health, an integrated healthcare delivery system, completed baseline surveys and received FOBT screening kits, with 1,467 members returning the kits. We matched FOBT (+) patients (n = 55) 1:2 on age and sex with FOBT (-) respondents (n = 110). Both groups completed follow-up surveys at 7 to 14 days and 4 months after screening. We assessed situational anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI), colorectal cancer worry frequency, and mood disturbance.

resultsMean age was 59 years, and majority were women (62%) and White (89%). After adjusting for age, sex, and baseline worry, at 7 to 14 days after screening, the FOBT (+) group was 3.82 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09-13.43] times more likely to report colorectal cancer-related mood disturbances and significantly higher mean STAI scores than the FOBT (-) group (mean = 38.8 vs. 30.9; P = 0.007). At 4-month posttest, mood disturbances and situational anxiety seemed to drop to baseline levels for FOBT (+). No colon cancer worry frequency was observed.

conclusionsFOBT (+) results are associated with short-term situational anxiety and colorectal cancer-specific mood disturbances. IMPACT: Distress from FOBT (+) results declined to near-baseline levels by 4 months. Additional studies are needed to clarify the relationship between long-term distress and follow-up colonoscopy.

Indexed as

Occult BloodReagent Kits, DiagnosticAnxietyColorectal NeoplasmsDelivery of Health CareDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID24220914
PMCPMC3947142
OpenAlexW2128132717

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.