ReviewBioMed research international2015
Developments in Screening Tests and Strategies for Colorectal Cancer.
Review in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of flexible sigmoidoscopy combined with fecal immunochemical test in colorectal cancer screening: meta-analysis and modeling.European journal of epidemiology · 2017Pooled it
- Non-invasive colorectal cancer screening methods: focusing on diagnostic genetic and epigenetic markers.Cancer cell international · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in healthcare and medicine: clinical applications, therapeutic advances, and future perspectives.European journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Cracking the Code of Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Overview With a Focus on Current and Emerging Screening Methods.Cureus · 2025Review
- Fecal microRNAs as Innovative Biomarkers of Intestinal Diseases and Effective Players in Host-Microbiome Interactions.Cancers · 2020Review
- Targeting EGFR Overexpression at the Surface of Colorectal Cancer Cells by Exploiting Amidated BODIPY-Peptide Conjugates.Photochemistry and photobiology · 2020Article
- Noninvasive Detection of Colorectal Carcinomas Using Serum Protein Biomarkers.The Journal of surgical research · 2020Article
- Diagnostic Value of Combinatorial Markers in Colorectal Carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Pneumoretroperitoneum with subcutaneous emphysema after a post colonoscopy colonic perforation.International journal of surgery case reports · 2019Article
- Differential diagnosis of pulmonary enteric adenocarcinoma and metastatic colorectal carcinoma with the assistance of next-generation sequencing and immunohistochemistry.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2019Article
- Is Awareness Enough to Bring Patients to Colorectal Screening?Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2018Article
- Effect of dietary components on miRNA and colorectal carcinogenesis.Cancer cell international · 2018Review
- MicroRNAs as Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer.Cancers · 2017Review
- MicroRNAs in the etiology of colorectal cancer: pathways and clinical implications.Disease models & mechanisms · 2017Review
- Flexible Gastro-intestinal Endoscopy - Clinical Challenges and Technical Achievements.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2017Review
- IL-13 induces the expression of 11βHSD2 in IL-13Rα2 dependent manner and promotes the malignancy of colorectal cancer.American journal of translational research · 2016Article
- K-In vivo (Athens, Greece)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWorldwide, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and second most common in women. It is the fourth most common cause of cancer mortality. In the United States, CRC is the third most common cause of cancer and second most common cause of cancer mortality. Incidence and mortality rates have steadily fallen, primarily due to widespread screening.
methodsWe conducted keyword searches on PubMed in four categories of CRC screening: stool, endoscopic, radiologic, and serum, as well as news searches in Medscape and Google News.
resultsColonoscopy is the gold standard for CRC screening and the most common method in the United States. Technological improvements continue to be made, including the promising "third-eye retroscope." Fecal occult blood remains widely used, particularly outside the United States. The first at-home screen, a fecal DNA screen, has also recently been approved. Radiological methods are effective but seldom used due to cost and other factors. Serum tests are largely experimental, although at least one is moving closer to market.
conclusionsColonoscopy is likely to remain the most popular screening modality for the immediate future, although its shortcomings will continue to spur innovation in a variety of modalities.
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.