Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27189357›Full record

ArticleJournal of oncology practice2016

Assessing Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence of Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries Age 76 to 95 Years.

John Bian, Charles Bennett, Gregory Cooper, Alessandra D'Alfonso, Deborah Fisher, Joseph Lipscomb, Chao-Nan Qian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Effects of the US Food and Drug Administration Boxed Warning of Erythropoietin-Stimulating Agents on Utilization and Adverse Outcome.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2017
    Article
  6. Decreasing Black-White Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Stage at Presentation in the United States.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2017
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

John BianSouth Carolina College of Pharmacy, Columbia, SC; University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA; Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China jbian@sccp.sc.edu.
Charles BennettSouth Carolina College of Pharmacy, Columbia, SC; University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA; Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Gregory CooperSouth Carolina College of Pharmacy, Columbia, SC; University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA; Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Alessandra D'AlfonsoSouth Carolina College of Pharmacy, Columbia, SC; University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA; Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Deborah FisherSouth Carolina College of Pharmacy, Columbia, SC; University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA; Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Joseph LipscombSouth Carolina College of Pharmacy, Columbia, SC; University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA; Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Chao-Nan QianSouth Carolina College of Pharmacy, Columbia, SC; University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH; Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Emory Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA; Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.

Funding

Translational Science Laboratory Shared ResourceP30CA138313 · NCI · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI RAYMOND N. DUBOIS · 2009 to 2026
$42.7M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA138313
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere are concerns about potential overuse of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening services among average-risk individuals older than age 75 years. MATERIALS AND

methodsUsing a 5% random noncancer sample of Medicare beneficiaries who resided in the SEER areas, we examined rates of CRC screening adherence, defined by the Medicare coverage policy, among average-risk fee-for-service beneficiaries age 76 to 95 years from 2002 to 2010. The two outcomes are the status of overall CRC screening adherence, and the status of adherence to colonoscopy (v other modalities) conditional on patient adherence.

resultsOverall CRC screening adherence rates of Medicare beneficiaries age 76 to 95 years increased from 13.0% to 21.4% from 2002 to 2010. In 2002, 2.2% of beneficiaries were adherent to colonoscopy, and 10.7%, by other modalities; the corresponding rates were 19.5% and 1.9%, respectively, in 2010. Specifically, rates of adherence to colonoscopy were 1.1% for those age 86 to 90 years and almost nil for those age 91 to 95 years in 2002, but the rates became 13.5% and 8.2%, respectively, in 2010. Compared with white beneficiaries, black beneficiaries age 76 to 95 years had a 7-percentage-point lower adherence rate. However, overall adherence rates among blacks increased by 168.6% from 2002 to 2010, whereas rates among whites increased by 63.0%. Logistic regressions showed that blacks age 86 to 95 years were less likely than whites to be adherent (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.59) but were more likely to be adherent to colonoscopy (odds ratio, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.47 to 3.91).

conclusionHigh proportions of average-risk Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries screened by colonoscopy may represent opportunities for improving appropriateness and allocative efficiency of CRC screening by Medicare.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFee-for-Service PlansFemaleHumansMaleMedicareOdds RatioPatient ComplianceUnited States

Identifiers

PMID27189357
PMCPMC5946705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.