ArticleScientific reports2016
Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme in Spain: Results of Key Performance Indicators After Five Rounds (2000-2012).
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Test performance metrics for breast, cervical, colon, and lung cancer screening: a systematic review.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Effectiveness of a decision aid for promoting colorectal cancer screening in Spain: a randomized trial.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Trial
- Colonoscopy vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM): Rationale for Study Design.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2017Trial
- Unmasking hidden trends: subsite-specific mortality patterns in colorectal and anal cancers in Spain, 1999-2023.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- KERMIT: Performance indicators in electronic patient reported outcome measures: a modified Delphi.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Building the foundations for an organized population-based cervical cancer screening program with primary HPV self-sampling in Catalonia, Spain: findings from a pilot implementation study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Diet Impacts on Gene Expression in Healthy Colon Tissue: Insights from the BarcUVa-Seq Study.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Adherence to follow-up and resource use after abnormal FIT-screening: Evaluation of the Danish colorectal cancer screening program.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Meta-Analysis and Validation of a Colorectal Cancer Risk Prediction Model Using Deep Sequenced Fecal Metagenomes.Cancers · 2022Article
- Factors Associated with Colorectal Cancer Screening in Spain: Results of the 2017 National Health Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Review
- Polygenic risk score across distinct colorectal cancer screening outcomes: from premalignant polyps to colorectal cancer.BMC medicine · 2021Article
- Proton-pump inhibitors are associated with a high false-positivity rate in faecal immunochemical testing.Journal of gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Positive impact of a faecal-based screening programme on colorectal cancer mortality risk.PloS one · 2021Article
- Trends and Predictors for the Uptake of Colon Cancer Screening Using the Fecal Occult Blood Test in Spain from 2011 to 2017.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Article
- Gut microbiome diversity detected by high-coverage 16S and shotgun sequencing of paired stool and colon sample.Scientific data · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective quality assurance is essential in any screening programme. This article provides a unique insight into key quality indicators of five rounds of the first population-based colorectal cancer screening programme implemented in Spain (2000-2012), providing the results according to the type of screening (prevalent or first screen and incident or subsequent screen) and test (guaiac or immunochemical). The total crude participation rate increased from 17.2% (11,011) in the first round to 35.9% (22,988) in the last one. Rescreening rate was very high (88.6% in the fifth round). Positivity rate was superior with the faecal immunochemical test (6.2%) than with the guaiac-based test (0.7%) (p < 0.0001) and detection rates were also better with the immunochemical test. The most significant rise in detection rate was observed for high risk adenoma in men (45.5 per 1,000 screened). Most cancers were diagnosed at an early stage (61.4%) and there was a statistically significant difference between those detected in first or subsequent screening (52.6% and 70.0% respectively; p = 0.024). The availability of these results substantially improves data comparisons and the exchange of experience between screening programmes.
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.