ReviewWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2015
Colorectal cancer diagnosis: Pitfalls and opportunities.
Review in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
73 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 134 citations in OpenAlex.
- Faecal immunochemical test to triage patients with possible colorectal cancer symptoms: meta-analysis.The British journal of surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Alterations in PGC1α expression levels are involved in colorectal cancer risk: a qualitative systematic review.BMC cancer · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Advancing Tumor Treatment Through Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Modeling: A Comprehensive Review.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating clinicopathological pattern and management of colorectal cancer for adult patients presenting at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital: a 10-year retrospective review.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Extracellular vesicles in colorectal cancer: immunomodulation, diagnostics, and therapeutic perspectives.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2026Review
- Patient-specific pharmacogenomics demonstrates xCT as predictive therapeutic target in colon cancer with possible implications in tumor connectivity.Molecular oncology · 2026Article
- Advances in Metal-based Nanotechnology-based Optical Therapy for the Targeted Treatment of Colorectal Cancer.Anti-cancer agents in medicinal chemistry · 2026Review
- Role of LINC00332 in colorectal cancer progression and paclitaxel resistance.Cell division · 2025Article
- Impedimetric Graphene-Based Gold Immunosensor for Colorectal Cancer Biomarker CCSP‑2 Detection.ACS omega · 2025Article
- Assessing the impact of a single qualitative fecal immunochemical test on colonoscopy prioritization and mortality in risk-stratified patients with suspected colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2025Article
- Can Salivary Biomarkers Serve as Diagnostic and Prognostic Tools for Early Detection in Patients with Colorectal Cancer? A Systematic Review.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Folate metabolism-associated CYP26A1 is a clinico-immune target in colorectal cancer.Genes and immunity · 2025Article
- The pathway to diagnosis of early-onset colorectal cancer: exploring diagnostic intervals and their effect on outcomes.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Photoacoustic-Integrated Multimodal Approach for Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025Review
- Exploring colorectal cancer patients' diagnostic pathways and general practitioners' assessment of the diagnostic processes: a Danish survey study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a logistic regression model for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Dual Biomarker Strategies for Liquid Biopsy: Integrating Circulating Tumor Cells and Circulating Tumor DNA for Enhanced Tumor Monitoring.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Review
- Mapping the colorectal cancer patient journey in Egypt: A qualitative study of diagnosis, treatment, and lifestyle perspectives.PloS one · 2025Article
13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health problem in the Western world. The diagnostic process is a challenge in all health systems for many reasons: There are often no specific symptoms; lower abdominal symptoms are very common and mostly related to non-neoplastic diseases, not CRC; diagnosis of CRC is mainly based on colonoscopy, an invasive procedure; and the resource for diagnosis is usually scarce. Furthermore, the available predictive models for CRC are based on the evaluation of symptoms, and their diagnostic accuracy is limited. Moreover, diagnosis is a complex process involving a sequence of events related to the patient, the initial consulting physician and the health system. Understanding this process is the first step in identifying avoidable factors and reducing the effects of diagnostic delay on the prognosis of CRC. In this article, we describe the predictive value of symptoms for CRC detection. We summarize the available evidence concerning the diagnostic process, as well as the factors implicated in its delay and the methods proposed to reduce it. We describe the different prioritization criteria and predictive models for CRC detection, specifically addressing the two-week wait referral guideline from the National Institute of Clinical Excellence in terms of efficacy, efficiency and diagnostic accuracy. Finally, we collected information on the usefulness of biomarkers, specifically the faecal immunochemical test, as non-invasive diagnostic tests for CRC detection in symptomatic patients.
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.