Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27239121›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2016

Colorectal cancer screening in countries of European Council outside of the EU-28.

Emma Altobelli, Francesco D'Aloisio, Paolo Matteo Angeletti

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06420843 (Microbiota, Metabolome and Nutrition), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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.

NCT06420843 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Microbiota, Metabolome and Nutrition: an 'Artificially Intelligent' Way to Personalized Nutrition

TypeinterventionalSponsorIstituto Clinico HumanitasRan2021 to 2024Enrolled48ConditionsIBS - Irritable Bowel SyndromeArmsFOODMAP
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Global Health 101.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Emma AltobelliEmma Altobelli, Francesco D'Aloisio, Paolo Matteo Angeletti, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, 67100 L'Aquila, Italy.
Francesco D'AloisioEmma Altobelli, Francesco D'Aloisio, Paolo Matteo Angeletti, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, 67100 L'Aquila, Italy.
Paolo Matteo AngelettiEmma Altobelli, Francesco D'Aloisio, Paolo Matteo Angeletti, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, 67100 L'Aquila, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo provide an update on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes in non-European Union (EU)-28 Council of Europe member states as of December 2015.

methodsThe mission of the Council of Europe is to protect and promote human rights in its 47 member countries. Its 19 non-EU member states are Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Republic of Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, FYR of Macedonia, Turkey, and Ukraine (EU-19). The main data source were GLOBOCAN, IARC, WHO, EUCAN, NORDCAN, ENCR, volume X of the CI5, the ministerial and Public Health Agency websites of the individual countries, PubMed, EMBASE, registries of some websites and the www.cochranelibrary.com, Scopus, www.clinicaltrials.gov, www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu, Research gate, Google and data extracted from screening programme results.

resultsOur results show that epidemiological data quality varies broadly between EU-28 and EU-19 countries. In terms of incidence, only 30% of EU-19 countries rank high in data quality as opposed to 86% of EU-28 states. The same applies to mortality data, since 52% of EU-19 countries as against all EU-28 countries are found in the high ranks. Assessment of the method of collection of incidence data showed that only 32% of EU-19 countries are found in the top three quality classes as against 89% of EU-28 countries. For the mortality data, 63% of EU-19 countries are found in the highest ranks as opposed to all EU-28 member states. Interestingly, comparison of neighbouring countries offering regional screening shows, for instance, that incidence and mortality rates are respectively 38.9 and 13.0 in Norway and 29.2 and 10.9 in Sweden, whereas in Finland, where a national organised programme is available, they are respectively 23.5 and 9.3.

conclusionCancer screening should be viewed as a key health care tool, also because investing in screening protects the weakest in the population, decreases the social burden of cancer, and reduces all types of health care costs, including those for radical surgery, long-term hospitalisation, and chemotherapy.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerAgedAged, 80 and overColorectal NeoplasmsEuropeFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsPrevalenceQuality ImprovementQuality Indicators, Health CareSex DistributionColorectal cancerEarly detectionEU-19EU-28European CouncilEuropean UnionScreening

Identifiers

PMID27239121
PMCPMC4873887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.