ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2015
The Influence of Screening for Precancerous Lesions on Family-Based Genetic Association Tests: An Example of Colorectal Polyps and Cancer.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating the Effect of Targeted Screening Strategies: An Application to Colonoscopy and Colorectal Cancer.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2017Review
- Re: "The Influence of Screening For Precancerous Lesions on Family-Based Genetic Association Tests: An Example of Colorectal Polyps and Cancer".American journal of epidemiology · 2016Article
- The destruction complex of beta-catenin in colorectal carcinoma and colonic adenoma.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)Observational
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Unintended consequences of secondary prevention include potential introduction of bias into epidemiologic studies estimating genotype-disease associations. To better understand such bias, we simulated a family-based study of colorectal cancer (CRC), which can be prevented by resecting screen-detected polyps. We simulated genes related to CRC development through risk of polyps (G1), risk of CRC but not polyps (G2), and progression from polyp to CRC (G3). Then, we examined 4 analytical strategies for studying diseases subject to secondary prevention, comparing the following: 1) CRC cases with all controls, without adjusting for polyp history; 2) CRC cases with controls, adjusting for polyp history; 3) CRC cases with only polyp-free controls; and 4) cases with either CRC or polyps with controls having neither. Strategy 1 yielded estimates of association between CRC and each G that were not substantially biased. Strategies 2-4 yielded biased estimates varying in direction according to analysis strategy and gene type. Type I errors were correct, but strategy 1 provided greater power for estimating associations with G2 and G3. We also applied each strategy to case-control data from the Colon Cancer Family Registry (1997-2007). Generally, the best analytical option balancing bias and power is to compare all CRC cases with all controls, ignoring polyps.
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.