ArticleEuropean journal of gastroenterology & hepatology2015
Improving uptake of screening for colorectal cancer: a study on invitation strategies and different test kit use.
Article in European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Selection of patients for large mailed fecal immunochemical test colorectal cancer screening outreach programs: A systematic review.Journal of medical screening · 2021Pooled it
- Implementation Strategies for Interventions Aiming to Increase Participation in Mail-Out Bowel Cancer Screening Programs: A Realist Review.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Strategies for increasing participation in mail-out colorectal cancer screening programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Effectiveness and Cost of an Enhanced Mailed Fecal Test Outreach Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Findings from the PROMPT Stepped-Wedge Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023Trial
- Application of an autotransfusion pressure control system in blood salvage.The Journal of international medical research · 2023Trial
- Randomized Controlled Trial of Advance Notification Phone Calls vs Text Messages Prior to Mailed Fecal Test Outreach.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2021Trial
- Recent trends in self-reported utilization of colonoscopy and fecal occult blood test in Europe: analysis of the European Health Interview Surveys 2013-2015 and 2018-2020.European journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Article
- A Review of Community Awareness for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Prevention in North and Central Asian Countries.Cureus · 2023Review
- Patients' Expectations and Preferences for the Organizational Conditions of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme in Poland: A Qualitative Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Current Situation and Screening in North and Central Asian Countries.Cureus · 2023Review
- Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Summit.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2020Article
- The Association Between Inflammation, Epithelial Mesenchymal Transition and Stemness in Colorectal Carcinoma.Journal of inflammation research · 2020Article
- The effects of reminders for colorectal cancer screening: participation and inequality.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Article
- Faecal Occult Blood Point-of-Care Tests.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2018Review
- Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services.Journal of medical screening · 2017Article
- Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: four rounds of faecal immunochemical test-based screening.British journal of cancer · 2017Article
- Fecal occult blood versus DNA testing: indirect comparison in a colorectal cancer screening population.Clinical epidemiology · 2017Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the uptake of mail-delivered tests for colorectal cancer screening. We assessed the effect of an advance notification letter and a reminder letter, and analysed the proportion of inappropriately handled tests. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifteen thousand randomly selected residents of Latvia aged 50-74 years were allocated to receive one of three different test systems: either a guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) or one of two laboratory-based immunochemical tests (FIT) - FOB Gold or OC-Sensor. Half of the target population received an advance notification letter; all nonresponders were sent a reminder letter.
resultsThe uptake of screening was 31.2% for the gFOBT, 44.7% for FOB Gold and 47.4% for the OC-Sensor (odds ratio 0.55; 95% confidence interval 0.51-0.60 for gFOBT vs. FOB Gold; odds ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.83-0.98 for FOB Gold vs. OC-Sensor). The uptake in the gFOBT group was improved by the advance notification letter (7.7%, P<0.0001). 30.9% returned tests were received after the reminder letter. The proportion of tests that could not be analysed because of inadequate handling was 0.9% for gFOBT, 4.4% for FOB Gold and 0.2% for the OC-Sensor (P=0.002 for gFOBT vs. OC-Sensor; P<0.001 for all comparisons vs. FOB Gold).
conclusionThe use of FIT resulted in higher uptake. Receipt of a reminder letter was critical to participation, but the use of an advance notification letter was important mainly for gFOBT. The proportion of inappropriately handled tests was markedly higher for FOB Gold.
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.