Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27618798›Full record

ArticleBMC gastroenterology2016

Using a hypothetical scenario to assess public preferences for colorectal surveillance following screening-detected, intermediate-risk adenomas: annual home-based stool test vs. triennial colonoscopy.

Bernardette Bonello, Alex Ghanouni, Harriet L Bowyer, Eilidh MacRae, Wendy Atkin, Stephen P Halloran, Jane Wardle, Christian von Wagner

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC 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 NCT04967183 (Polyprev Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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.

NCT04967183 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Polyprev Study: Randomized, Multicenter, Controlled Trial Comparing Fecal Immunochemical Test With Endoscopic Surveillance After Advanced Adenoma Resection in Fecal Immunochemical Test Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs.

TypeinterventionalSponsorFundacin Biomedica Galicia SurRan2022 to 2035Enrolled3,788ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsAnnual FIT, Endoscopic surveillance.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Bernardette BonelloHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Alex GhanouniHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Harriet L BowyerHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Eilidh MacRaeDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Wendy AtkinDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Stephen P HalloranNHS Bowel Cancer Screening Southern Programme Hub, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
Jane WardleHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Christian von WagnerHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. c.wagner@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14134Cancer Research UK 16894Department of Health 09/22/192Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10338
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo assess public preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance tests for intermediate-risk adenomas, using a hypothetical scenario.

methodsAdults aged 45-54 years without CRC were identified from three General Practices in England (two in Cumbria, one in London). A postal survey was carried out during a separate study on preferences for different first-line CRC screening modalities (non- or full-laxative computed tomographic colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy). Individuals were allocated at random to receive a pack containing information on one first-line test, and a paragraph describing CRC surveillance recommendations for people who are diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas during screening. All participants received a description of two surveillance options: annual single-sample, home-based stool testing (consistent with Faecal Immunochemical Tests; FIT) or triennial colonoscopy. Invitees were asked to imagine they had been diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas, and then complete a questionnaire on their surveillance preferences.

results22.1 % (686/3,100) questionnaires were returned. 491 (15.8 %) were eligible for analysis. The majority of participants stated a surveillance preference for the stool test over colonoscopy (60.8 % vs 31.0 %; no preference: 8.1 %; no surveillance: 0.2 %). Women were more likely to prefer the stool test than men (66.7 % vs. 53.6 %; p = .011). The primary reason for preferring the stool test was that it would be done more frequently. The main reason to prefer colonoscopy was its superiority at finding polyps.

conclusionsA majority of participants stated a preference for a surveillance test resembling FIT over colonoscopy. Future research should test whether this translates to greater adherence in a real surveillance setting.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, ISRCTN85697880 , prospectively registered on 25/04/2013.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceAdenomaColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccult BloodPopulation SurveillanceSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsCancer surveillanceColonoscopyColorectal cancerFaecal immunochemical testIntermediate-risk adenomasPatient preference

Identifiers

PMID27618798
PMCPMC5020544

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.