Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28368944›Full record

ReviewEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2017

Estimating the Effect of Targeted Screening Strategies: An Application to Colonoscopy and Colorectal Cancer.

Duncan C Thomas

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Duncan C ThomasFrom the Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
University of Southern California · US

Funding

USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Fumito Ito · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
Translational Research Support CoreP30ES007048 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Joseph Leo Wiemels · 1996 to 2026
$46.4M
Statistical Methods for Integrative Genomics in CancerP01CA196569 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI David V Conti · 2016 to 2026
$25.5M
Transdisciplinary Studies of Genetic Variation in Colorectal CancerU19CA148107 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI GRUBER, STEPHEN B · 2010 to 2014
$11.1M
Methods for Pathway Modeling with Application to FolateR01ES019876 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI THOMAS, DUNCAN C. · 2010 to 2014
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA196569NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089NCI NIH HHS U19 CA148107NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES007048NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES019876
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening behavior depends on previous screening history and family members' behaviors, which can act as both confounders and intermediate variables on a causal pathway from screening to disease risk. Conventional analyses that adjust for these variables can lead to incorrect inferences about the causal effect of screening if high-risk individuals are more likely to be screened. Analyzing the data in a manner that treats screening as randomized conditional on covariates allows causal parameters to be estimated; inverse probability weighting based on propensity of exposure scores is one such method considered here. I simulated family data under plausible models for the underlying disease process and for screening behavior to assess the performance of alternative methods of analysis and whether a targeted screening approach based on individuals' risk factors would lead to a greater reduction in cancer incidence in the population than a uniform screening policy. Simulation results indicate that there can be a substantial underestimation of the effect of screening on subsequent cancer risk when using conventional analysis approaches, which is avoided by using inverse probability weighting. A large case-control study of colonoscopy and colorectal cancer from Germany shows a strong protective effect of screening, but inverse probability weighting makes this effect even stronger. Targeted screening approaches based on either fixed risk factors or family history yield somewhat greater reductions in cancer incidence with fewer screens needed to prevent one cancer than population-wide approaches, but the differences may not be large enough to justify the additional effort required. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B207.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthComputer SimulationAdultAgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID28368944
PMCPMC5453827
OpenAlexW2603264490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.