Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28441381›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2017

Text-message Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening (TRICCS): a randomised controlled trial.

Yasemin Hirst, Hanna Skrobanski, Robert S Kerrison, Lindsay C Kobayashi, Nicholas Counsell, Natasha Djedovic, Josephine Ruwende, Mark Stewart, Christian von Wagner

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Journal of health communication · 2026
    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

9 authors.

Yasemin HirstThe Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 7BT, UK.
Hanna SkrobanskiThe Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 7BT, UK.
Robert S KerrisonThe Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 7BT, UK.
Lindsay C KobayashiThe Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 7BT, UK.
Nicholas CounsellCancer Research UK &UCL Cancer Trials Centre, Cancer Institute, University College London, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4TJ, UK.
Natasha DjedovicSt Marks Bowel Cancer Screening Centre, St Marks Hospital, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3UJ, UK.
Josephine RuwendeNHS England London Region, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QT, UK.
Mark StewartSt Marks Bowel Cancer Screening Centre, St Marks Hospital, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3UJ, UK.
Christian von WagnerThe Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 7BT, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15953
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe investigated the effectiveness of a text-message reminder to improve uptake of the English Bowel Cancer Screening programme in London.

methodsWe performed a randomised controlled trial across 141 general practices in London. Eight thousand two hundred sixty-nine screening-eligible adults (aged 60-74 years) were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive either a text-message reminder (n=4134) or no text-message reminder (n=4135) if they had not returned their faecal occult blood test kit within 8 weeks of initial invitation. The primary outcome was the proportion of adults returning a test kit at the end of an 18-week screening episode (intention-to-treat analysis). A subgroup analysis was conducted for individuals receiving an invitation for the first time.

resultsUptake was 39.9% in the control group and 40.5% in the intervention group. Uptake did not differ significantly between groups for the whole study population of older adults (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.12; P=0.56) but did vary between the groups for first-time invitees (uptake was 34.9% in the control and 40.5% in the intervention; adjusted OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04-1.58; P=0.02).

conclusionsAlthough text-message reminders did not significantly increase uptake of the overall population, the improvement among first-time invitees is encouraging.

Indexed as

Occult BloodReminder SystemsText MessagingAgedAge FactorsCell PhoneColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLondonMaleMiddle AgedPatient ComplianceSex FactorsSocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID28441381
PMCPMC5520096

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.