Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27304597›Full record

GuidelineJAMA2016

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

US Preventive Services Task Force, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, David C Grossman, Susan J Curry, Karina W Davidson, John W Epling, Francisco A R García, Matthew W Gillman, Diane M Harper, Alex R Kemper and 9 more

Erratum issued 5 registry-linked trialsAbstract readPractice GuidelineVideo-Audio Media
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in JAMA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 942 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
942citing 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.

NCT03510858 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Colorectal Cancer Testing in Swiss Primary Care: A Pilot Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Quality Circles of Physicians

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of BernRan2018 to 2021Enrolled44ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsMultilevel training intervention (intervention group), Multilevel training intervention (control group with crossover)
NCT03843957 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness and Implementation of mPATH-CRC: a Mobile Health System for Colorectal Cancer Screening

TypeinterventionalSponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2019 to 2023Enrolled77,145ConditionsColorectal Cancer, Cancer, Rectum Cancer, Colon CancerArmsmPATH-CRC, mPATH-Checkin, "high touch" Implementation strategy, "low touch" Implementation Strategy
NCT03981679 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Prospective, Non-randomized, Open-label and Multi-center Study With the Establishment of a Clinical-biological Database.

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstitut du Cancer de Montpellier - Val d'AurelleRan2018 to 2020Enrolled278ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsBiological collection
NCT04406714 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Scaling Colorectal Cancer Screening Through Outreach, Referral, and Engagement (SCORE): A State-Level Program to Reduce Colorectal Cancer Burden in Vulnerable Populations

TypeinterventionalSponsorUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterRan2020 to 2024Enrolled4,318ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsTrial Mailed FIT Intervention - Age Group 50-75, Sub-Study Mailed FIT Intervention Enhanced Envelope - Age Group 45-49, Sub-Study Mailed FIT Active Comparator Plain Envelope - Age Group 45-49
NCT05903885 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Using a Cross-sectional Partnership to Improve Prevention and Health Equity Among African Americans

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of NebraskaRan2023 to 2026Enrolled1,200ConditionsColorectal Cancer, PreventionArmsOn-site Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Kit Distribution, On-site With Social Media Advertising Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Kit Distribution
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. A Randomized Trial of Choice Architecture and Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach in a Community Health Setting.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2024
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. The Influence of Asian Subgroup and Acculturation on Colorectal Cancer Screening Knowledge and Attitudes Among Chinese and Korean Americans.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Longitudinal Adherence With Stool-Based Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Four United States Health Systems.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2026
    Article

882 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

US Preventive Services Task Force
Kirsten Bibbins-DomingoUniversity of California, San Francisco.
David C GrossmanGroup Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Susan J CurryUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City.
Karina W DavidsonColumbia University, New York, New York.
John W EplingState University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse.
Francisco A R GarcíaPima County Department of Health, Tucson, Arizona.
Matthew W GillmanHarvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Diane M HarperUniversity of Louisville, Kentucky.
Alex R KemperDuke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Alex H KristFairfax Family Practice Residency, Fairfax, Virginia11Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
Ann E KurthYale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
C Seth LandefeldUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham.
Carol M MangioneUniversity of California, Los Angeles.
Douglas K OwensVeterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California16Stanford University, Stanford, California.
William R PhillipsUniversity of Washington, Seattle.
Maureen G PhippsBrown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Michael P PignoneUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Albert L SiuMount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York21James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bronx, New York.

Funding

Viral VectorP30CA086862 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Christopher K Laubenthal · 2000 to 2026
$70.0M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceColorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In 2016, an estimated 134,000 persons will be diagnosed with the disease, and about 49,000 will die from it. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among adults aged 65 to 74 years; the median age at death from colorectal cancer is 68 years.

objectiveTo update the 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for colorectal cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening with colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test, the fecal immunochemical test, the multitargeted stool DNA test, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA test in reducing the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer or all-cause mortality; the harms of these screening tests; and the test performance characteristics of these tests for detecting adenomatous polyps, advanced adenomas based on size, or both, as well as colorectal cancer. The USPSTF also commissioned a comparative modeling study to provide information on optimal starting and stopping ages and screening intervals across the different available screening methods.

findingsThe USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk, asymptomatic adults aged 50 to 75 years is of substantial net benefit. Multiple screening strategies are available to choose from, with different levels of evidence to support their effectiveness, as well as unique advantages and limitations, although there are no empirical data to demonstrate that any of the reviewed strategies provide a greater net benefit. Screening for colorectal cancer is a substantially underused preventive health strategy in the United States. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer starting at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years (A recommendation). The decision to screen for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years should be an individual one, taking into account the patient's overall health and prior screening history (C recommendation).

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesPreventive Health ServicesAgedAge FactorsColonography, Computed TomographicColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsDNAFecesHumansImmunohistochemistryMiddle AgedOccult BloodRisk AssessmentSeptinsSigmoidoscopyDNASEPTIN9 protein, humanSeptins

Identifiers

PMID27304597

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.