Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26156248›Full record

Trial reportTrials2015

Virtual colonoscopy, optical colonoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening: results of a pilot randomized controlled trial.

John J You, Yudong Liu, John Kirby, Parag Vora, Paul Moayyedi

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00865527 (Randomized Comparison of Virtual Colonoscopy, Optical Colonoscopy, and Fecal Occult Blood Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT00865527 naterminatednot on this map

Randomized Comparison of Virtual Colonoscopy, Optical Colonoscopy, and Fecal Occult Blood Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening: a Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorHamilton Health Sciences CorporationRan2010 to 2011Enrolled198ConditionsColorectal Cancer, Colon Cancer, Adenomatous PolypsArmsFecal occult blood test, Virtual colonoscopy, Optical colonoscopy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

John J YouDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Room HSC-2C8, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1, Canada. jyou@mcmaster.ca.
Yudong LiuFaculty of Dentistry, Western University, Dental Sciences Building, Room 1003, London, Ontario, N6A 5C1, Canada. christineliu.7@gmail.com.
John KirbyDepartment of Radiology, Connolly Hospital Blanchardstown, Dublin, Ireland. john.kirby1@hse.ie.
Parag VoraDepartment of Radiology, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Room 2S284, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1, Canada. vora@hhsc.ca.
Paul MoayyediDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Room HSC-2C8, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1, Canada. moayyep@mcmaster.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNo head-to-head randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the superiority of one colorectal screening modality over another in reducing colorectal cancer mortality. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), optical colonoscopy (OC), and virtual colonoscopy (VC), to inform the planning of a larger evaluative trial.

methodsEligible patients (aged 50 to 70) were recruited from five primary care practices in Hamilton, ON, Canada, between March 23, 2010 and August 11, 2010, and randomized 1:1:1 in a parallel design using an automated, centralized telephone service to either FOBT, OC, or VC. To reflect conventional practice, patients received no additional reminders to complete their allocated screening test beyond those received in usual practice. The primary outcome was completion of the assigned screening procedure. Results of the index test and any follow-up investigations were ascertained at 6 months. Participants, caregivers, and outcome assessors were not blinded to group assignment. The trial was stopped early due to lack of ongoing funding.

resultsA total of 198 participants were enrolled, of whom 67 were allocated to FOBT, 66 to OC, and 65 to VC. The allocated screening procedure was completed by 43 (64%) subjects allocated to FOBT (95% confidence interval [CI], 52-75%), 53 (80%) subjects allocated to OC (95% CI, 69-88%), and 50 (77%) subjects allocated to VC (95% CI, 65-85%); because the trial stopped early, we had insufficient statistical power to detect clinically relevant differences in completion rates. During 6 months follow-up, colorectal adenomas were detected in 0 (0%) subjects allocated to FOBT, 12 (18%) subjects allocated to OC, and 2 (3%) subjects allocated to VC. One subject in the OC arm had histological evidence of high-grade dysplasia. No subjects were diagnosed with colorectal cancer.

conclusionsIn this pilot randomized controlled trial of colorectal cancer screening in a primary care setting, 64-80% of subjects completed their allocated screening test. These findings may be of value to investigators planning clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00865527. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00865527.

Indexed as

Colonography, Computed TomographicColonoscopyOccult BloodAdenomatous PolypsAgedColonic PolypsColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEarly Termination of Clinical TrialsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOntarioPatient CompliancePilot Projects

Identifiers

PMID26156248
PMCPMC4499903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.