Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28166751›Full record

Trial reportBMC cancer2017

Improving adherence to colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines: results of a randomised controlled trial.

Mariko Carey, Robert Sanson-Fisher, Finlay Macrae, Emilie Cameron, David Hill, Catherine D'Este, Christopher Doran

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Implementation science: from evidence to practice.Acta medica colombiana : AMC : organo de la Asociacion Columbiana de Medicina Interna
    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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Mariko CareyPriority Research Centre for Health Behaviour (PRCHB), School of Medicine & Public Health, University of Newcastle, W4, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, Australia. mariko.carey@newcastle.edu.au.
Robert Sanson-FisherPriority Research Centre for Health Behaviour (PRCHB), School of Medicine & Public Health, University of Newcastle, W4, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Finlay MacraeCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Emilie CameronPriority Research Centre for Health Behaviour (PRCHB), School of Medicine & Public Health, University of Newcastle, W4, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
David HillCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Catherine D'EsteNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Christopher DoranSchool Human, Health and Social Sciences, Central Queensland University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
University of Newcastle Australia · AUAustralian National University · AUCancer Council Victoria · AUCentral Queensland University · AUMelbourne Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) survivors are at increased risk of developing the disease again. Surveillance guidelines are aimed at maximising the early detection of recurring or new cancers and pre-cancerous polyps. The frequency and type of surveillance recommended depends on the type of treatment for the initial CRC, the extent of colonoscopic investigation prior to treatment and the results of previous surveillance tests. This paper aimed to test the effect of a paper-based educational intervention to improve adherence to colonoscopy following treatment for colorectal cancer.

methodsPeople with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer within the last 10 months, aged ≥18 and English speaking were recruited through a population-based cancer registry in Australia. Participants were randomly allocated to either the intervention or control. Participants completed an interview at baseline. Self-reported participation in colonoscopy was obtained at 12 month followup by survey. Those allocated to the control received a generic pamphlet on colorectal cancer treatment; while intervention participants received a letter which provided specific information about guideline recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy. Rates of guideline adherence were compared between groups. The guideline recommendations for the timing of surveillance colonoscopy changed part way through the study. This change occurred after all intervention materials had been sent, but prior to all participants completing the 12 month follow up. Post hoc analyses were conducted to assess adherence to the new guidelines.

resultsOf the 767 participants, 604 (79%) had had surgery, had stage I - III disease and completed the baseline interview within 12 months of diagnosis (intervention = 305; control = 299). There was no significant difference between those adherent to surveillance colonoscopy guidelines, in the control (67, 27%) and intervention groups (80, 31%) at followup (difference = 4.3% (95%CI:-3.7%, 12%), χ

conclusionsResults indicate the paper-based educational intervention is not effective in improving adherence to colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines for colonoscopy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12609000628246 Registration date: 28/07/2009.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaCancer SurvivorsColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesBowel cancerColonoscopyColorectal cancerGuideline adherenceImplementation scienceRandomized controlled trialSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID28166751
PMCPMC5294678
OpenAlexW2587544766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.