ReviewThe New Zealand medical journal2016
Screening for colorectal cancer: spoiled for choice?
Review in The New Zealand medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dimethyladenosine Transferase 1 Homolog Promotes Human Gastric Carcinoma Cell Proliferation and Inhibits Apoptosis via the AKT Pathway.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Article
- FOXQ1 promotes cancer metastasis by PI3K/AKT signaling regulation in colorectal carcinoma.American journal of translational research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are many different potential screening strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) that vary both in the likely magnitude of their benefits on CRC mortality and their impact on health services. Many approaches to CRC screening are cost-effective, but there is substantial uncertainty about the optimal approach. Decision models using Markov or microsimulation modelling that compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies are useful in this regard. We have reviewed recent decision models that compare the cost-effectiveness of one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy screening with immunochemical faecal occult blood (FIT) based screening. Models consistently show that any population-based screening is cost-effective compared with no screening, and that FIT-based screening is more effective than one-off sigmoidoscopy screening. The combination of one-off sigmoidoscopy with FIT is more effective in saving lives than either modality alone, but has the greatest impact on health service resources. The recent decision to proceed with biennial FIT-based screening is consistent with current evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27538046What 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.