Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27593418›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of preventive medicine2016

Patient Decision Aids for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Robert J Volk, Suzanne K Linder, Maria A Lopez-Olivo, Geetanjali R Kamath, Daniel S Reuland, Smita S Saraykar, Viola B Leal, Michael P Pignone

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of preventive medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03819920 (Does Knowing One's Estimated Colorectal Cancer Risk Influence Screening Behavior?), which is not on this map. Cited by 43 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
14.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT03819920 nacompletednot on this map

Does Knowing One's Estimated Colorectal Cancer Risk Influence Screening Behavior?

TypeinterventionalSponsorStanford UniversityRan2015 to 2019Enrolled229ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsRisk Assessment (CCRAT), Usual Care (UC)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Different information needs-The major reasons for calling the helpline when invited to colorectal cancer screening.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Patient-Provider Communication and Colorectal Cancer Screening Completion Using Multi-target Stool DNA Testing.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Robert J VolkDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: bvolk@mdanderson.org.
Suzanne K LinderDivision of Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas.
Maria A Lopez-OlivoDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Geetanjali R KamathDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Daniel S ReulandDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Smita S SaraykarDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Viola B LealDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Michael P PignoneDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · US

Funding

Patient Centered Outcomes Research in the ElderlyR24HS022134 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI GOODWIN, MD, JAMES S. · 2013 to 2017
$4.8M
Promoting Health Literacy for Colorectal Cancer ScreeningR21CA132669 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI VOLK, ROBERT J · 2009 to 2010
$377k
AHRQ HHS R24 HS022134NCI NIH HHS R21 CA132669
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextDecision aids prepare patients to make decisions about healthcare options consistent with their preferences. Helping patients choose among available options for colorectal cancer screening is important because rates are lower than screening for other cancers. This systematic review describes studies evaluating patient decision aids for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults and their impact on knowledge, screening intentions, and uptake. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid PsycINFO through July 21, 2015, pertinent reference lists, and Cochrane review of patient decisions aids. Reviewers independently selected studies that quantitatively evaluated a decision aid compared to one or more conditions or within a pre-post evaluation. Using a standardized form, reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Analysis was conducted in August 2015. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three articles representing 21 trials including 11,900 subjects were eligible. Patients exposed to a decision aid showed greater knowledge than those exposed to a control condition (mean difference=18.3 of 100; 95% CI=15.5, 21.1), were more likely to be interested in screening (pooled relative risk=1.5; 95% CI=1.2, 2.0), and more likely to be screened (pooled relative risk=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.4). Decision aid patients had greater knowledge than patients receiving general colorectal cancer screening information (pooled mean difference=19.3 of 100; 95% CI=14.7, 23.8); however, there were no significant differences in screening interest or behavior.

conclusionsDecision aids improve knowledge and interest in screening, and lead to increased screening over no information, but their impact on screening is similar to general colorectal cancer screening information.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesColorectal NeoplasmsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMass Screening

Identifiers

PMID27593418
PMCPMC5067222
OpenAlexW2512624594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.