ArticlePreventive medicine2017
Recommendation of colorectal cancer testing among primary care patients younger than 50 with elevated risk.
Article in Preventive medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary and Secondary Prevention Interventions to Reduce Risk Factors Associated with Colorectal Cancer in High-Risk Groups: a Systematic Literature Review.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Pooled it
- Selection of patients for large mailed fecal immunochemical test colorectal cancer screening outreach programs: A systematic review.Journal of medical screening · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluating Risk Factors for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer in a Large, Prospective Cohort.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- People with early-onset colorectal cancer describe primary care barriers to timely diagnosis: a mixed-methods study of web-based patient reports in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022Article
- Physician-office vs home uptake of colorectal cancer screening using FOBT/FIT among screening-eligible US adults.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Outcomes associated with use of thePreventive medicine reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In the era of precision medicine, efforts are needed to identify and tailor screening recommendations among elevated-risk patients. Individuals younger than 50years are an important target population, as they comprise 15% of colorectal (CRC) cases and often present with more advanced disease than their 50+ counterparts. In this large study, 2470 patients ages 25-49 used a tablet-based program that assessed risks, matched risks with screening guidelines, and generated tailored printed guideline-concordant recommendations for patients and their providers. The tablet-based program identified 121 (4.9%) patients with risk factors warranting screening before age 50. Likelihood of risk warranting screening was greater for ages 40-49 than <40years (OR: 2.38), females than males (OR: 1.82), and African Americans (OR: 1.69) and non-Hispanic Whites (OR: 2.89) compared to Hispanics. Most common risk factors were family history of polyps (23.1%), personal history of inflammatory bowel disease (19.8%), and combined family history of CRC+polyps (18.2%). Receipt of guideline-concordant screening within 6months of identification was low, including only 5.3% of those who needed colonoscopy and 13.3% for whom colonoscopy or FIT was recommended. Although elevated-risk patients younger than 50years can be readily identified, more than notification is necessary to facilitate screening participation.
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.