Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24951037›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2014

Fecal-based colorectal cancer screening among the uninsured in northern Manhattan.

Grace Clarke Hillyer, Karen M Schmitt, Daniel E Freedberg, Rachel A Kramer, Yin Su, Richard M Rosenberg, Alfred I Neugut

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Grace Clarke HillyerDepartment of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public HealthColumbia University, New York. Electronic address: gah28@columbia.edu.
Karen M SchmittNew York Presbyterian Hospital, New York.
Daniel E FreedbergDivision of Digestive and Liver Diseases.
Rachel A KramerNew York State Department of Health, Division of Chronic Disease Prevention, Albany, New York.
Yin SuNew York State Department of Health, Division of Chronic Disease Prevention, Albany, New York.
Richard M RosenbergDivision of Digestive and Liver Diseases.
Alfred I NeugutDepartment of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public HealthColumbia University, New York; Division of Hematology and Oncology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York.
Center for Digestive and Liver Diseases · USNew York State Department of Health · USColumbia University · USHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer CenterNewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · US

Funding

CRN4: Cancer Research Resources & Collaboration in Integrated Health Care SystemsU24CA171524 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI KUSHI, LAWRENCE H · 2012 to 2016
$16.0M
Multidisciplinary Training in Translational Gastrointestinal and Liver ResearchT32DK083256 · NIDDK · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Timothy Cragin Wang · 2009 to 2026
$5.5M
NCI NIH HHS 1U24 CA171524NCI NIH HHS U24 CA171524NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK083256NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK083256-04
6 · The paper itself

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

AdenomaAgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCommunity Health ServicesEarly Detection of CancerFecesFemaleGuaiacHumansMaleMass ScreeningMedically UninsuredMiddle AgedNew York CityOccult BloodGuaiac

Identifiers

PMID24951037
PMCPMC4127996
OpenAlexW2121267751

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.