ReviewFrontiers in public health2014
Colorectal cancer screening: tests, strategies, and perspectives.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04407416 (The Effectiveness of Breath Analysis Versus FIT for Colorectal Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 59 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.
The Effectiveness of Breath Analysis Versus FIT for Colorectal Cancer Screening
Who cites it
59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review.Journal of medical screening · 2023Pooled it
- The Effects of the Nurse Navigation Program in Promoting Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviors: a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020Trial
- Early detection of colorectal cancer based on presence of methylated syndecan-2 (SDC2) in stool DNA.Clinical epigenetics · 2019Trial
- A randomised controlled trial of personalised decision support delivered via the internet for bowel cancer screening with a faecal occult blood test: the effects of tailoring of messages according to social cognitive variables on participation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2015Trial
- Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A New Integrative Modeling Approach for Generating Counterfactual Projections of Colorectal Cancer Incidence Rates in the Absence of Organized Screening in Australia.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- An Integrated Architecture for Colorectal Polyp Segmentation: The µ-Net Framework with Explainable AI.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A preliminary assessment of a stool-based microRNA profile for early colorectal cancer screening.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Advances in colorectal cancer screening: technological innovations, guideline discrepancies, and individualized strategies.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Early prediction of colorectal adenoma risk: leveraging large-language model for clinical electronic medical record data.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Polyp Size and Surveillance Colonoscopy: A Phantom Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- "You're dealing with the bottom here…" understanding reasons for reduced utilisation: a qualitative study on colorectal cancer screening among vulnerable men at a drop-in centre in Denmark.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies Using Active Learning and Monte Carlo Simulation.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Article
- Stool Glycoproteomics Signatures of Pre-Cancerous Lesions and Colorectal Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Liquid Biopsy for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Patients Who Are Unscreened.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Gut Microbial and Associated Metabolite Markers for Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis.Microorganisms · 2023Review
- MicroRNA Biomarkers as Promising Tools for Early Colorectal Cancer Screening-A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Microbiome and Colorectal Cancer Management.Cureus · 2022Review
- Trends in colon and rectal cancer mortality in Australia from 1972 to 2015 and associated projections to 2040.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening has a central role in colorectal cancer (CRC) control. Different screening tests are effective in reducing CRC-specific mortality. Influence on cancer incidence depends on test sensitivity for pre-malignant lesions, ranging from almost no influence for guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) to an estimated reduction of 66-90% for colonoscopy. Screening tests detect lesions indirectly in the stool [gFOBT, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and fecal DNA] or directly by colonic inspection [flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, CT colonography (CTC), and capsule endoscopy]. CRC screening is cost-effective compared to no screening but no screening strategy is clearly better than the others. Stool tests are the most widely used in worldwide screening interventions. FIT will soon replace gFOBT. The use of colonoscopy as a screening test is increasing and this strategy has superseded all alternatives in the US and Germany. Despite its undisputed importance, CRC screening is under-used and participation rarely reaches 70% of target population. Strategies to increase participation include ensuring recommendation by physicians, introducing organized screening and developing new, more acceptable tests. Available evidence for DNA fecal testing, CTC, and capsule endoscopy is reviewed.
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.