Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24651603›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2014

Comparing universal Lynch syndrome tumor-screening programs to evaluate associations between implementation strategies and patient follow-through.

Deborah Cragun, Rita D DeBate, Susan T Vadaparampil, Julie Baldwin, Heather Hampel, Tuya Pal

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Deborah CragunDivision of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Rita D DeBateDepartment of Community and Family Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Susan T VadaparampilDivision of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Julie BaldwinDepartment of Community and Family Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Heather HampelDepartment of Internal Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Tuya PalDivision of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Moffitt Cancer Center · USUniversity of South Florida · USThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

Moffitt Postdoctoral Training Program in Molecular & Genetic EpidemiologyR25CA147832 · NCI · H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CTR & RES INST · PI EGAN, KATHLEEN M. · 2010 to 2014
$2.0M
Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implemention Research in CancerR25CA171994 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BROWNSON, ROSS C · 2013 to 2017
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS 5R25CA147832-04NCI NIH HHS R25 CA147832NCI NIH HHS R25 CA171994
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUniversal tumor screening (UTS) for all colorectal cancer patients can improve the identification of Lynch syndrome, the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer. This multiple-case study explored how variability in UTS procedures influenced patient follow-through (PF) with germ-line testing after a screen-positive result.

methodsData were obtained through Web-based surveys and telephone interviews with institutional informants. Institutions were categorized as Low-PF (≤10% underwent germ-line testing), Medium-PF (11-40%), or High-PF (>40%). To identify implementation procedures (i.e., conditions) unique to High-PF institutions, qualitative comparative analysis was performed.

resultsTwenty-one informants from 15 institutions completed surveys and/or interviews. Conditions present among all five High-PF institutions included the following: (i) disclosure of screen-positive results to patients by genetic counselors; and (ii) genetic counselors either facilitate physician referrals to genetics professionals or eliminate the need for referrals. Although both of these High-PF conditions were present among two Medium-PF institutions, automatic reflex testing was lacking and difficulty contacting screen-positive patients was a barrier. The three remaining Medium-PF and five Low-PF institutions lacked the conditions found in High-PF institutions.

conclusionMETHODS for streamlining UTS procedures, incorporating a high level of involvement of genetic counselors in tracking and communication of results and in reducing barriers to patient contact, are reviewed within a broader discussion on maximizing the effectiveness and public health impact of UTS.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisEarly Detection of CancerFollow-Up StudiesGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingGerm-Line MutationHealth SurveysHumansReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID24651603
PMCPMC4169758
OpenAlexW2092616683

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.