Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25881903›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2015

Time to benefit for colorectal cancer screening: survival meta-analysis of flexible sigmoidoscopy trials.

Victoria Tang, W John Boscardin, Irena Stijacic-Cenzer, Sei J Lee

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 26 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Unrelated Death After Colorectal Cancer Screening: Implications for Improving Colonoscopy Referrals.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Victoria TangSan Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, CA 94121, USA Victoria.Tang@ucsf.edu.
W John BoscardinSan Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, CA 94121, USA Division of Geriatrics, University of California San Francisco CA, USA.
Irena Stijacic-CenzerSan Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, CA 94121, USA Division of Geriatrics, University of California San Francisco CA, USA.
Sei J LeeSan Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, CA 94121, USA Division of Geriatrics, University of California San Francisco CA, USA.
San Francisco VA Medical Center · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

VARC CoreP30AG044281 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI W. JOHN BOSCARDIN · 2013 to 2026
$19.9M
Individualizing Treatment for Nursing Home Residents with Diabetes MellitusK23AG040779 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LEE, SEI · 2011 to 2013
$526k
NIA NIH HHS K23AG040779NIA NIH HHS P30 AG044281
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the time to benefit of using flexible sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.

designSurvival meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A Cochrane Collaboration systematic review published in 2013, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy with no screening. Trials with fewer than 100 flexible sigmoidoscopy screenings were excluded.

resultsFour studies were eligible (total n = 459,814). They were similar for patients' age (50-74 years), length of follow-up (11.2-11.9 years), and relative risk for colorectal cancer related mortality (0.69-0.78 with flexible sigmoidoscopy screening). For every 1000 people screened at five and 10 years, 0.3 and 1.2 colorectal cancer related deaths, respectively, were prevented. It took 4.3 years (95% confidence interval 2.8 to 5.8) to observe an absolute risk reduction of 0.0002 (one colorectal cancer related death prevented for every 5000 flexible sigmoidoscopy screenings). It took 9.4 years (7.6 to 11.3) to observe an absolute risk reduction of 0.001 (one colorectal cancer related death prevented for every 1000 flexible sigmoidoscopy screenings).

conclusionOur findings suggest that screening flexible sigmoidoscopy is most appropriate for older adults with a life expectancy greater than approximately 10 years.

Indexed as

SigmoidoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansModels, StatisticalMonte Carlo MethodRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID25881903
PMCPMC4399600
OpenAlexW2120112475

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.