Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25814264›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2015

Comparative Effectiveness of Multifaceted Outreach to Initiate Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Shira N Goldman, David T Liss, Tiffany Brown, Ji Young Lee, David R Buchanan, Kate Balsley, Ana Cesan, Jordan Weil, Bridget H Garrity, David W Baker

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Video brochures in a mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach program provide cancer screening information in a user-friendly format for rural Appalachian community members.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2024
    Trial
  10. 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 · 2023
    Trial
  11. 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 · 2021
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Shira N GoldmanDivision of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
David T Liss
Tiffany Brown
Ji Young Lee
David R Buchanan
Kate Balsley
Ana Cesan
Jordan Weil
Bridget H Garrity
David W Baker

Funding

UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING HIGH RATES OF REFUSAL OF PNEUMOCOCCAL VACCINATION AP01HS021141 · AHRQ · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI CAMERON, KENZIE A · 2011 to 2013
$4.3M
AHRQ HHS 1P01HS021141-01AHRQ HHS P01 HS021141
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionColorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are low among vulnerable populations. Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are one screening modality with few barriers. Studies have shown that outreach can improve CRC screening, but little is known about its effectiveness among individuals with no CRC screening history. We sought to determine whether outreach increases FIT uptake among patients with no CRC screening history compared to usual care.

methodsThis study was a patient-level randomized controlled trial, including 420 patients who had never completed CRC screening and were eligible for FIT; 66% were female, 62.1% were Latino, and 70.7% were uninsured. The main outcome measure was FIT completion within 6 months of the randomization date. We assessed FIT completion at different time points corresponding to receipt of outreach components. All analyses were re-run with 12-month data.

resultsPatients who received outreach were more likely to complete FIT than those in usual care (36.7% vs. 14.8%; p < 0.001). FIT completion was more common among patients with increased clinic visits. The difference in FIT completion between the outreach and usual care groups decreased over time. DISCUSSION: The intervention improved FIT uptake among patients with no CRC screening history. However, the intervention was less effective than in a previous trial targeting patients due for repeat screening. Additional research is needed to determine the best methods for improving CRC screening among this hard-to-reach group.

Indexed as

Community Health CentersOccult BloodAgedColorectal NeoplasmsComparative Effectiveness ResearchDelivery of Health CareEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Status DisparitiesHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedVulnerable Populations

Identifiers

PMID25814264
PMCPMC4510220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.