ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2014
Fecal-based colorectal cancer screening among the uninsured in northern Manhattan.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effective strategies for Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FIT) programs to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake among populations with limited access to the healthcare system: a rapid review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- The fecal immunochemical test (fit): Selected aspects regarding its effectiveness for colorectal cancer screening in Quebec City.Preventive medicine reports · 2018Article
- Latinas' Colorectal Cancer Screening Knowledge, Barriers to Receipt, and Feasibility of Home-Based Fecal Immunochemical Testing.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2018Article
- Timeliness of Colonoscopy After Abnormal Fecal Test Results in a Safety Net Practice.Journal of community health · 2016Article
- Where does it FIT? The roles of fecal testing and colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening.Cancer · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces CRC mortality; however, for many reasons, uninsured individuals are less likely to utilize CRC screening tests. PURPOSE: To compare CRC screening behaviors and outcomes with guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) from 1998 to 2006 and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) from 2006 to 2010 in a community-based program serving uninsured patients in northern Manhattan.
methodsIn 2013, we conducted a retrospective record review of individuals aged ≥50 years who received fecal-based CRC screening at the Northern Manhattan Cancer Screening Partnership between 1998 and 2010. Included were those with household income ≤250% of the federal poverty level, no medical insurance coverage, and who were not up to date with CRC screening. We assessed screening positivity rate, positive predictive value, differences in the use of diagnostic colonoscopy, colonoscopic findings, and adenoma detection rates for gFOBT versus FIT.
resultsIn total, 7,710 patients completed CRC screenings (4,951 gFOBT and 2,759 FIT). The majority were female, Hispanic, foreign born, and young at age of first screening. Compared to gFOBT, FIT detected twice as many positive tests (3.2% vs 1.5%, p≤0.001) and had a higher adenoma detection rate (18.2 vs 11.8, p=0.002).
conclusionsThe improved positivity and adenoma detection rates with greater number of screening tests over time favor the use of FIT over gFOBT for colorectal screening among uninsured populations in northern Manhattan.
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.