ReviewDigestive diseases and sciences2015
Do recent epidemiologic observations impact who and how we should screen for CRC?
Review in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2015. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk Scores for Predicting Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in the Average-risk Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2018Pooled it
- Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment and Precision Approaches to Screening: Brave New World or Worlds Apart?Gastroenterology · 2023Review
- A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022Article
- Smoking and Other Risk Factors in Individuals With Synchronous Conventional High-Risk Adenomas and Clinically Significant Serrated Polyps.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2018Article
- CRC Screening: Is It Worthwhile in Younger Adults?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2016Article
- Adenoma Detection Rates for Screening Colonoscopies in Smokers and Obese Adults: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.Journal of clinical gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended to begin at age 50 for those patients with no significant family history of CRC. However, even within this group of average-risk patients, there is data to suggest that there may be variation in CRC risk. These observations suggest that perhaps CRC screening should be tailored to target those patients at higher risk for earlier or more invasive screening as compared to those individuals at lower risk. The strategy of how to identify those higher-risk patients may not be straightforward. One method might be to use single risk factors such as smoking or elevated BMI as has been suggested in the recent American College of Gastroenterology CRC screening guidelines. Another paradigm involves the use of models which incorporate several risk factors to stratify patients by risk. This article will highlight recent large studies that examine recognized CRC risk factors as well as review recently developed CRC risk models. There will also be a discussion of the application of these factors and models in an effort to make CRC screening more efficient.
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.