ReviewDigestive diseases and sciences2014
Disparities in endoscopy use for colorectal cancer screening in the United States.
Review in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2014. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Associations between circulating 1,25(OH)₂D concentration and odds of metachronous colorectal adenoma.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2014Trial
- Biomarker Testing Disparities in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Patient Test Preference for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Screening Uptake in an Insured Urban Minority Population.Journal of community health · 2016Article
- African Americans Have Better Outcomes for Five Common Gastrointestinal Diagnoses in Hospitals With More Racially Diverse Patients.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2016Article
- Epigenetics and Colorectal Neoplasia: the Evidence for Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior.Current colorectal cancer reports · 2015Article
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
Abstract
It is well established that disparities exist for colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence rates and death. With screening, death from CRC may be considered a preventable occurrence. Endoscopy (flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy) is the only modality with therapeutic benefit of removal of pre-cancerous polyps. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandated that preventive screening services be covered, which includes endoscopy for colon cancer screening. Recent federal rules have eliminated cost sharing for polyp removal during screening colonoscopy in privately insured patients; however, this has not been mandated for Medicare patients. Understanding the current state of disparities in endoscopy use is important, as these policy changes will affect millions of patients. The purpose of this literature review was to summarize the known research on disparities in endoscopy use for colon cancer screening in the United States and highlight areas for future research.
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.