ArticleBritish journal of cancer2016
Risk factors cannot explain the higher prevalence rates of precancerous colorectal lesions in men.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Precision prevention of colorectal neoplasia in patients undergoing hemorrhoid surgery: an explainable machine learning model for identifying the risk of precancerous neoplastic polyps.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Mortality from upper gastrointestinal tumors in colorectal cancer screening patients.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- The "scope" of colorectal cancer screening in Lynch syndrome: is there an optimal interval?Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- Ability of lactulose breath test results to accurately identify colorectal polyps through the measurement of small intestine bacterial overgrowth.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
- Disparate age and sex distribution of sessile serrated lesions and conventional adenomas in an outpatient colonoscopy population-implications for colorectal cancer screening?International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Observational
- Factors Associated with Colorectal Polyps in Middle-Aged and Elderly Populations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- RE: Long-Term Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality After Colonoscopy Screening According to Individuals' Risk Profiles.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Article
- Establish a Novel Model for Predicting the Risk of Colorectal Ademomatous Polyps: a Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of Cancer · 2022Article
- Machine Learning Models Cannot Replace Screening Colonoscopy for the Prediction of Advanced Colorectal Adenoma.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- A sex-specific propensity-adjusted analysis of colonic adenoma detection rates in a screening cohort.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Bowel preparation with 1L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate NER1006 doubles the chance to detect three or more adenomas in overweight or obese males.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- MUW researcher of the month.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2021Article
- Bowel-cleansing efficacy of the 1L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation NER1006 (PLENVU) in patient subgroups in two phase III trials.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Adenoma Characteristics and the Influence of Alcohol and Cigarette Consumption on the Development of Advanced Colorectal Adenomas.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Prevalence and risk factors for colorectal polyps in a Chinese population: a retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Impact of polymorphisms in DNA repair genes XPD, hOGG1 and XRCC4 on colorectal cancer risk in a Chinese Han Population.Bioscience reports · 2019Article
- Adenoma detection rate metrics in colorectal cancer surveillance colonoscopy.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevalence of (pre)cancerous colorectal lesions are higher in men than in women, although transition rates from advanced lesions to cancer is similar in both sexes. Our aim was to investigate whether the sex-specific difference in incidence of premalignant colorectal lesions might be explained by the impact of risk factors.
methodsA cross-sectional study analysing health check-up examinations and screening colonoscopies performed within a national quality assurance program.
resultsA total of 25 409 patients were included in this study, 50.8% were women. Median age for both sexes was 60 years (interquartile range (IQR) 54-67). A multivariable model showed that risk factors mediated only 0.6 of the 10.4% gender gap in adenoma and 0.47 of the 3.2% gender gap in advanced adenoma detection rate. Smoking was the only independent risk factor with a varying sex-specific effect (men OR 1.46, CI 1.29, 1.64, women OR 1.76, CI 1.53, 2.06) and advanced adenomas (men OR 1.06, CI 0.80-1.42; women OR 2.08, CI 1.52-2.83). Independent risk factors for adenomas were BMI (OR 1.35 per IQR, CI 1.25-1.47) and triglyceride level (OR 1.03 per IQR, CI 1.00-1.06); for advanced adenomas physical activity (none vs regular: OR 1.54, CI 1.18-2.00, occasional vs regular: OR 1.17, CI 1.00-1.38), cholesterol level (OR 1.13 per IQR, CI 1.02-1.25), blood glucose level (OR 1.05 per IQR, CI 1.01-1.09) and alcohol score (OR 1.09 per IQR, CI 1.01-1.18).
conclusionsRisk factors cannot explain higher prevalence rates in men. Results of this study strongly underline the need for sex-specific screening recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.