ArticleGastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench2016
Designing clinical and genetic guidelines of colorectal cancer screening as an effective roadmap for risk management.
Article in Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a risk score for colorectal cancer screening.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2025Article
- A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022Article
- Cancer ecosystem assessment in West Africa: health systems gaps to prevent and control cancers in three countries: Ghana, Nigeria and Senegal.The Pan African medical journal · 2020Article
- Colorectal cancer in iran: molecular epidemiology and screening strategies.Journal of cancer epidemiology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWe aimed to present clinical and genetic guidelines of colorectal cancer screening for risk assessment of populations at risk.
backgroundNational guidelines can be used as a guide for choosing the method of screening for each individual. These guidelines facilitate decision making and support the delivery of cancer screening service.
methodsIn the first step, a comparative study was performed by using secondary data extracted from the literature review. Three countries (Canada, Australia and United States) were selected from 25 countries that are member in the International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN). The second step of study was qualitative survey. The study was based on the grounded theory approach. Study tool was semi-structured interview. Interviewing involves asking questions and getting answers from participants. 22 expert's perspectives about guidelines of colorectal cancer screening were surveyed.
resultsScreening program of selected countries was compared. Countries were surveyed by number of risk groups and subgroups, criteria for risk assessment, beginning age, recommendations, screening approaches and intervals. Australia and United States have three risk groups and Canada has two risk groups. Four risk groups were defined in the national guideline, including high risk, increased risk, average and low risk group. The high risk group comprises of 8 subgroups, increased risk group comprises of 3 subgroups and average risk group contain 4 subgroups. Approved clinical criteria for hereditary syndromes and the roadmap of genetic and pathologic survey were designed.
conclusionsGuidelines and pathways have a vital role in the quality improvement of CRC screening program. National guidelines were refined according to the environmental and genetic criteria of colorectal cancer in Iran. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations by risk groups. National pathways as a risk assessment tool can evaluate and improve the processes and outcomes of cancer screening in practice. One of the suggestions for future research is the designing expert system for real-time decision making during a clinical interaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28224029PMC5310801What 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.