ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2017
A centrally generated primary care physician audit report does not improve colonoscopy uptake after a positive result on a fecal occult blood test in Ontario's ColonCancerCheck program.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Interventions to Improve Follow-up of Positive Results on Fecal Blood Tests: A Systematic Review.Annals of internal medicine · 2017Pooled it
- What Multilevel Interventions Do We Need to Increase the Colorectal Cancer Screening Rate to 80%?Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2021Review
- Clinical utility of a blood-based protein assay to increase screening of elevated-risk patients for colorectal cancer in the primary care setting.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTimely follow-up of fecal occult blood screening with colonoscopy is essential for achieving colorectal cancer mortality reduction. In the present study, we evaluated the effectiveness of centrally generated, physician-targeted audit and feedback to improve colonoscopy uptake after a positive fecal occult blood test (fobt) result within Ontario's population-wide ColonCancerCheck Program.
methodsThis prospective cohort study used data sets from Ontario's ColonCancerCheck Program (2008-2011) that were linked to provincial administrative health databases. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the effect of centralized, physician-targeted audit and feedback on colonoscopy uptake in an Ontario-wide fobt-positive cohort.
resultsA mailed physician audit and feedback report identifying individuals outstanding for colonoscopy for 3 or more months after a positive fobt result did not increase the likelihood of colonoscopy uptake (hazard ratio: 0.95; 95% confidence interval: 0.79 to 1.13). Duration of positive fobt status was strongly inversely associated with the hazard of follow-up colonoscopy (
conclusionsIn a large population-wide setting, centralized tracking in the form of physician-targeted mailed audit and feedback reports does not improve colonoscopy uptake for screening participants with a positive fobt result outstanding for 3 or more months. Mailed physician-targeted screening audit and feedback reports alone are unlikely to improve compliance with follow-up colonoscopy in Ontario. Other interventions such as physician audits or automatic referrals, demonstrated to be effective in other jurisdictions, might be warranted.
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.