Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26851338›Full record

ArticlePreventing chronic disease2016

Diabetes Status and Being Up-to-Date on Colorectal Cancer Screening, 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

Nancy R Porter, Jan M Eberth, Marsha E Samson, Oralia Garcia-Dominic, Eugene J Lengerich, Mario Schootman

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Preventing chronic disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Diabetes Mellitus and the Colon.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2017
    Review
  5. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nancy R PorterArnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Jan M EberthAssistant Professor of Epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina, Arnold School of Public Health, Columbia, South Carolina. Email: jmeberth@mailbox.sc.edu.
Marsha E SamsonArnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
Oralia Garcia-DominicHighmark Blue Shield, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; College of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania; Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania; College of Health and Human Development, and The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvani.
Eugene J LengerichCollege of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania; Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania; College of Health and Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Mario SchootmanSaint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri, and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri.
University of South Carolina · US

Funding

Biomedical-Behavioral Interface: Prevention and Developmental Sciences TrainingT32GM081740 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI PRINZ, RONALD J · 2008 to 2022
$4.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM081740NIGMS NIH HHS T32-GM081740
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAlthough screening rates for colorectal cancer are increasing, 22 million Americans are not up-to-date with recommendations. People with diabetes are an important and rapidly growing group at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Screening status and predictors of being up-to-date on screening are largely unknown in this population.

methodsThis study used logistic regression modeling and data from the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to examine the association between diabetes and colorectal cancer screening predictors with being up-to-date on colorectal cancer screening according to criteria of the US Preventive Services Task Force for adults aged 50 or older. State prevalence rates of up-to-date colorectal cancer screening were also calculated and mapped.

resultsThe prevalence of being up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening for all respondents aged 50 or older was 65.6%; for respondents with diabetes, the rate was 69.2%. Respondents with diabetes were 22% more likely to be up-to-date on colorectal cancer screening than those without diabetes. Among those with diabetes, having a routine checkup within the previous year significantly increased the odds of being up-to-date on colorectal cancer screening (odds ratio, 1.90). Other factors such as age, income, education, race/ethnicity, insurance status, and history of cancer were also associated with up-to-date status.

conclusionRegardless of diabetes status, people who had a routine checkup within the past year were more likely to be up-to-date than people who had not. Among people with diabetes, the duration between routine checkups may be of greater importance than the frequency of diabetes-related doctor visits. Continued efforts should be made to ensure that routine care visits occur regularly to address the preventive health needs of patients with and patients without diabetes.

Indexed as

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance SystemAgedColorectal NeoplasmsDiabetes MellitusFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRisk FactorsSelf ReportSigmoidoscopy

Identifiers

PMID26851338
PMCPMC4747441
OpenAlexW2260690714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.