Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24578753›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2014

Resident knowledge of colorectal cancer screening assessed by web-based survey.

Stuart Akerman, Scott L Aronson, Maurice A Cerulli, Meredith Akerman, Keith Sultan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trainee Awareness of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Knowledge, attitude, and practices of primary health care physicians toward colorectal cancer screening.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
    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.

Stuart AkermanNSLIJ - Western Suffolk Gastroenterology, Bay Shore, NY, USA ; Hofstra - Northshore LIJ School of Medicine, Hempstead, NY, USA.
Scott L AronsonHofstra - Northshore LIJ School of Medicine, Hempstead, NY, USA ; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Maurice A CerulliHofstra - Northshore LIJ School of Medicine, Hempstead, NY, USA ; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Northshore Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Manhasset, NY, USA.
Meredith AkermanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Northshore Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Manhasset, NY, USA ; Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, NY, USA.
Keith SultanHofstra - Northshore LIJ School of Medicine, Hempstead, NY, USA ; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Northshore Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Manhasset, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate resident knowledge of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines and to define areas requiring attention.

methodsA survey was created using three published guidelines for CRC screening. Program directors for internal medicine residency programs were contacted within the metro New York City area to have their residents participate.

resultsFive programs participated, and 115 responses were recorded. For the appropriate testing and interval to screen for CRC, 61/115 residents identified flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, 108/115 identified colonoscopy every 10 years, 16/115 identified double contrast barium enema (DCBE) every 5 years and only 12/115 thought CT-colography every 5 years was appropriate. Only 40/115 respondents appropriately identified fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) administered in the patient's home annually, while fecal immunohistochemical testing (FIT) annually at home was identified by 8/115 residents.

conclusionWhile most residents seem knowledgeable regarding CRC screening with colonoscopy, many deficiencies remain. FOBT for screening purposes remains undervalued, and confusion about administering the test persists. The distinction between screening and prevention needs further reinforcement.

Indexed as

Colorectal cancerPreventive medicineResident education

Identifiers

PMID24578753
PMCPMC3935520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.