Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26409792›Full record

GuidelineAnnals of Saudi medicine

National Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Saudi Arabia with strength of recommendations and quality of evidence.

Nasser Alsanea, Majid A Almadi, Alaa S Abduljabbar, Samar Alhomoud, Taghreed A Alshaban, Abdullah Alsuhaibani, Ahmad Alzahrani, Faisal Batwa, Abdul-Hameed Hassan, Denise Hibbert and 5 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisPractice GuidelineSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Guideline in Annals of Saudi medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing 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

54 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. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link: Care pathways in colorectal cancer, from emergency interventions to preventive strategies.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Barriers and Facilitators to Colorectal Cancer Screening: Providers' Perspective.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

15 authors.

Nasser AlsaneaNasser Alsanea, MBBCh, President, Saudi Society of Colon & Rectal Surgery,, Head Section, Colon & Rectal Surgery,, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre-Riyadh, (MBC-40), PO Box 3354, Riyadh 11211,, Saudi Arabia, T: 966-1-442 7754, F: 966-1-442.7772, nsanea@kfshrc.edu.sa.
Majid A Almadi
Alaa S Abduljabbar
Samar Alhomoud
Taghreed A Alshaban
Abdullah Alsuhaibani
Ahmad Alzahrani
Faisal Batwa
Abdul-Hameed Hassan
Denise Hibbert
Randa Nooh
Mohammed Alothman
Bram Rochwerg
Waleed Alhazzani
Rebecca L Morgan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer is the most common cancer among Saudi men and the third commonest among Saudi women. Given the predominance of colorectal cancer compared with other cancers in Saudi Arabia, context-specific guidelines are needed for screening.

methodsExperts from the Saudi Society of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Saudi Gastroenterology Association, Saudi Oncology Society, Saudi Chapter of Enterostomal Therapy, Family Medicine and Department of Public Health at the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Health and a patient advocate was assembled by the Saudi Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare, a subsidiary of the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Health. The panel collaborated with a methodological team from McMaster University, Canada to develop national guidelines for colorectal cancer screening. After identifying key questions, the panel conducted a systematic review of all reports on the utility of screening, the cost of screening for colorectal cancer in Saudi Arabia and on the values and preferences of Saudi patients. Meta- analyses, when appropriate, were performed to generate pooled estimates of effect. Using the GRADE approach, the panel used the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework to assess all domains important in determining the strength and direction of the recommendations (benefits and harms, values and preferences, resource implications, equity, acceptability, and feasibility). Judgments related to the EtD domains were resolved through consensus or voting, if consensus was not reached. The final recommendations were developed during a two-day meeting held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in March 2015. Conflicts of interests among the panel members were handled according to the World Health Organization rules. LIMITATIONS: There is lack of national data on the incidence of adenomatous polyps or the age groups in which the incidence surges. There were no national clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of the different modalities of screening for colorectal cancer and their impact on mortality.

conclusionThe panel recommends screening for colorectal cancer in Saudi Arabia in asymptomatic Saudi patients at average risk of colorectal cancer. An infrastructure should be built to achieve that goal.

Indexed as

AgedColorectal NeoplasmsCooperative BehaviorEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRisk FactorsSaudi Arabia

Identifiers

PMID26409792
PMCPMC6074460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.