ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2017
Clinical utility of a blood-based protein assay to increase screening of elevated-risk patients for colorectal cancer in the primary care setting.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Colorectal cancer is associated with increased circulating lipopolysaccharide, inflammation and hypercoagulability.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Establishing Clinical Utility for Diagnostic Tests Using a Randomized Controlled, Virtual Patient Trial Design.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeColorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective in finding early stage CRC and dramatically improves survival rates. Despite this, the number of eligible patients who do not obtain CRC screening is unacceptably high.
methodsWe conducted a longitudinal, randomized controlled trial investigating the utility of a blood-based protein assay on the quality of care delivered by practicing PCPs in the United States. We used standardized simulated patients (CPVs), presenting with symptoms suggestive of a higher likelihood of CRC, to measure how frequently these PCPs ordered diagnostic colonoscopy. 190 PCPs cared for three patients at baseline and three patients post-intervention. The PCPs were randomized into one of two study arms: control and intervention. The intervention arm consisted of educational materials about the blood-based protein assay and positive test results. Each simulated patient in the intervention arm had a positive test result that was given to the doctor. The controls were given neither intervention materials nor blood-based protein assay results. Physician responses in both groups were scored against evidence-based criteria. Data were collected at baseline and post-intervention.
resultsAt baseline, we found that 71% of physicians ordered diagnostic colonoscopy. In round 2, 23% of physicians in the intervention arm adopted the new blood-based protein assay. Ordering physicians were 3.88 (95% CI 1.67-9.03) times more likely to order a diagnostic colonoscopy. In percentage terms, those who ordered the assay were more likely to order colonoscopy (92%) than either intervention physicians who did not order the assay (77%) or control physicians (66%) (p < 0.001). A marginal effects estimation showed that use of the assay would increase ordering colonoscopy to nearly 95%.
conclusionOver one-third of adults in the United States do not follow the recommended screening guidelines for CRC. The introduction of a blood-based protein assay significantly increased the likelihood that physicians would order diagnostic colonoscopies in elevated-risk patients compared to those without access to the assay results. The overall change in clinical utility observed here has the potential to significantly improve clinical care.
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.