ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2017
Colorectal cancer population screening programs worldwide in 2016: An update.
Review in World journal of gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 285 papers, 12 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
285 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Geographical Disparities in Faecal Immunochemical Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation and Positivity Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026Pooled it
- Public Preferences for Genetic and Genomic Risk-Informed Chronic Disease Screening and Early Detection: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Global, regional, national burden of colorectal cancer from 1990 to 2021, with projections of incidence to 2050: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 2021.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Experience and satisfaction of participants in colorectal cancer screening programs: a qualitative evidence synthesis.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- A comprehensive systematic review of colorectal cancer screening clinical practices guidelines and consensus statements.British journal of cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Gastroscopy after positive screening for faecal immunochemical tests and colonoscopy: A systematic review.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Findings from the first colorectal cancer screening among 103 542 individuals in Vietnam with systematic review of colorectal cancer screening programs in Asia-Pacific region.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants on the performance of fecal immunochemical tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Satisfaction and experience with colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review of validated patient reported outcome measures.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- Performance of Faecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening at Varying Positivity Thresholds.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Trial
- Blood Test Increases Colorectal Cancer Screening in Persons Who Declined Colonoscopy and Fecal Immunochemical Test: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2023Trial
- Tin, Titanium, Tantalum, Vanadium and Niobium Oxide Based Sensors to Detect Colorectal Cancer Exhalations in Blood Samples.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Trial
- Microbiome signatures for detection of colorectal lesions in population-based FIT screening.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of a Predictive Nomogram for Diagnosing Colorectal Cancer Based on Immune-Nutritional Score.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Flexible IMU Sensor Array For 3D Colonoscope Shape Reconstruction and AI-Based Loop Detection.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Psychosocial Factors and Bowel Cancer Screening Among Middle-Aged and Older Australians: Evidence From a Population-Based Longitudinal Study.American journal of health promotion : AJHP · 2026Article
- A scoping review of DNA methylation biomarkers for non-invasive detection of colorectal cancer at the CpG site level.Clinical epigenetics · 2026Article
225 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world. The incidence and mortality show wide geographical variations. Screening is recommended to reduce both incidence and mortality. However, there are significant differences among studies in implementation strategies and detection. This review aimed to present the results and strategies of different screening programs worldwide. We reviewed the literature on national and international screening programs published in PubMed, on web pages, and in clinical guidelines. CRC Screening programs are currently underway in most European countries, Canada, specific regions in North and South America, Asia, and Oceania. The most extensive screening strategies were based on fecal occult blood testing, and more recently, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Participation in screening has varied greatly among different programs. The Netherlands showed the highest participation rate (68.2%) and some areas of Canada showed the lowest (16%). Participation rates were highest among women and in programs that used the FIT test. Men exhibited the greatest number of positive results. The FIT test has been the most widely used screening program worldwide. The advent of this test has increased participation rates and the detection of positive results.
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.