Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28811705›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of gastroenterology2017

Colorectal cancer screening: An updated review of the available options.

Iyad A Issa, Malak Noureddine

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 306 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
306citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

306 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

246 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Iyad A IssaIyad A Issa, Malak Noureddine, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rafik Hariri University Hospital, Jnah, 33967 Beirut, Lebanon.
Malak NoureddineIyad A Issa, Malak Noureddine, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rafik Hariri University Hospital, Jnah, 33967 Beirut, Lebanon.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. However, colon cancer incidence and mortality is declining over the past decade owing to adoption of effective screening programs. Nevertheless, in some parts of the world, CRC incidence and mortality remain on the rise, likely due to factors including "westernized" diet, lifestyle, and lack of health-care infrastructure and resources. Participation and adherence to different national screening programs remain obstacles limiting the achievement of screening goals. Different modalities are available ranging from stool based tests to radiology and endoscopy with varying sensitivity and specificity. However, the availability of these tests is limited to areas with high economic resources. Recently, FDA approved a blood-based test (Epi procolon

Indexed as

Guideline AdherenceOccult BloodColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerHealth Care CostsHumansIncidenceMass ScreeningRisk AssessmentBlood DNA testColonoscopyColorectal cancerFecal DNA testGuidelinesOccult bloodScreening

Identifiers

PMID28811705
PMCPMC5537177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.