Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26229451›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2015

Patient willingness for repeat screening and preference for CT colonography and optical colonoscopy in ACRIN 6664: the National CT Colonography trial.

Ilana F Gareen, Bettina Siewert, David J Vanness, Benjamin Herman, C D Johnson, Constantine Gatsonis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ilana F GareenDepartment of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA ; Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA.
Bettina SiewertDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
David J VannessPopulation Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Benjamin HermanCenter for Statistical Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA.
C D JohnsonMayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Constantine GatsonisCenter for Statistical Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA ; Department of Biostatistics, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USBrown University · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

ECOG-ACRIN NCORP Research Base - TMISTUG1CA189828 · NCI · ECOG-ACRIN MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION · PI Peter J ODwyer, MITCHELL D. SCHNALL · 2014 to 2026
$199.7M
Statistics CoreU10CA180794 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI PAUL J CATALANO · 2014 to 2026
$111.2M
BIOSTATISTICS DATA MANAGEMENT CENTER FOR ACROINU01CA079778 · NCI · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI GATSONIS, CONSTANTINE A. · 1999 to 2011
$48.6M
Scientific and Technical CoreP2CHD047873 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Katherine J. Curtis · 2014 to 2026
$5.1M
Biostatistics Data Management Center for ACRINU10CA079778 · NCI · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI GATSONIS, CONSTANTINE A. · 2013 to 2013
$2.4M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA079778NCI NIH HHS U10 CA079778NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180794NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189828NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD047873
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent American Cancer Society recommendations for colon cancer screening include optical colonoscopy every 10 years or computed tomography colonography (CTC) every 5 years. Bowel preparation (BP) is currently required for both screening modalities. PURPOSE: To compare ACRIN 6664: the National CT Colonography Trial (NCTCT) participant experiences with CTC and optical colonoscopy (OC), procedure preference, and willingness to return for each procedure. MATERIALS AND

methodsParticipants from fifteen NCTCT sites, who underwent CTC followed by OC under sedation, were invited to complete questionnaires 2 weeks postexam, asking about procedure preference, physical discomfort, and embarrassment experienced and whether that discomfort and embarrassment was better or worse than expected during BP, CTC, and OC, as well as willingness to return for repeat CTC and OC at different time intervals.

resultsA total of 2,310 of 2,600 patients (89%) returned their questionnaires. Of patients reporting a preference, 1,058 (46.6%) preferred CTC, 569 (25.0%) preferred OC, and 626 (27.6%) reported no preference. Participant-reported discomfort worse than expected differed significantly between CTC (32.9%) and OC (5.0%) (P<0.001). About 79.3% were willing to be screened again with CTC in 5 years, and 96.6% with OC in 10 years. Discomfort and embarrassment worse than expected with OC were associated with increased intention to adhere with CTC in the future. Conversely, embarrassment experienced during CTC and discomfort worse than expected on CTC were associated with increased intention to adhere with OC in the future.

conclusionWhile a larger proportion of participants indicated that they preferred CTC to OC, willingness to undergo repeat CTC compared to OC was limited by unanticipated exam discomfort and embarrassment and CTC's shorter screening interval.

Indexed as

adherencebowel preparationcolonoscopyCT colonographypatient preference

Identifiers

PMID26229451
PMCPMC4516344
OpenAlexW1735981052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.