Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28873161›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2017

Effect of Colonoscopy Outreach vs Fecal Immunochemical Test Outreach on Colorectal Cancer Screening Completion: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Amit G Singal, Samir Gupta, Celette Sugg Skinner, Chul Ahn, Noel O Santini, Deepak Agrawal, Christian A Mayorga, Caitlin Murphy, Jasmin A Tiro, Katharine McCallister and 4 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative StudyPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 85 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing 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.

NCT01710215 nacompletednot on this map

Parkland-UT Southwestern PROSPR Center: Colon Cancer Screening in a Safety Net: Comparative Effectiveness of FIT, Colonoscopy, & Usual Care Screening Strategies

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterRan2013 to 2016Enrolled5,999ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsFIT Screening Strategy, Colon Screening Strategy
NCT06929481 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Screening With Liquid Biopsies to Address Colorectal Cancer Inequities

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San DiegoRan2025 to 2026Enrolled340ConditionsColorectal Cancer Screening, Colorectal Cancer (CRC)ArmsCell free DNA (cfDNA) blood test, At home Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) or Colonoscopy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. A Systematic Review of Repeat Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Novel Application of Predictive Modeling: A Tailored Approach to Promoting HCC Surveillance in Patients With Cirrhosis.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2022
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Repeat Annual Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Community Clinics: A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate Outreach Strategies to Sustain Screening.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2020
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Amit G SingalDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Samir GuptaDivision of Gastroenterology, Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, San Diego, California.
Celette Sugg SkinnerDepartment of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Chul AhnDepartment of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Noel O SantiniParkland Health and Hospital System, Dallas, Texas.
Deepak AgrawalDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Christian A MayorgaDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Caitlin MurphyDepartment of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Jasmin A TiroDepartment of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Katharine McCallisterDepartment of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Joanne M SandersDepartment of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Wendy Pechero BishopDepartment of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Adam C LoewenDepartment of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Ethan A HalmDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Funding

UT Southwestern Medical Center Simmons Comprehensive Cancer CenterP30CA142543 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI Kathryn Ann O'Donnell · 2010 to 2026
$53.7M
UT Southwestern Center for Translational Medicine (UL1/KL2/TL1)UL1TR001105 · NCATS · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI TOTO, ROBERT DANIEL · 2013 to 2017
$24.5M
Parkland-UT Southwestern PROSPR Center Colon Cancer Screening in a Safety netU54CA163308 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI HALM, ETHAN A, SKINNER, CELETTE SUGG · 2011 to 2017
$8.0M
UT Southwestern Center of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR)R24HS022418 · AHRQ · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI HALM, ETHAN A · 2013 to 2017
$5.0M
AHRQ HHS R24 HS022418NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001105NCI NIH HHS P30 CA142543NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163308
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach is more effective than colonoscopy outreach for increasing 1-time colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but long-term effectiveness may need repeat testing and timely follow-up for abnormal results. Objective: Compare the effectiveness of FIT outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase completion of the CRC screening process (screening initiation and follow-up) within 3 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic randomized clinical trial from March 2013 to July 2016 among 5999 participants aged 50 to 64 years who were receiving primary care in Parkland Health and Hospital System and were not up to date with CRC screenings. Interventions: Random assignment to mailed FIT outreach (n = 2400), mailed colonoscopy outreach (n = 2400), or usual care with clinic-based screening (n = 1199). Outreach included processes to promote repeat annual testing for individuals in the FIT outreach group with normal results and completion of diagnostic and screening colonoscopy for those with an abnormal FIT result or assigned to colonoscopy outreach. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was screening process completion, defined as adherence to colonoscopy completion, annual testing for a normal FIT result, diagnostic colonoscopy for an abnormal FIT result, or treatment evaluation if CRC was detected. Secondary outcomes included detection of any adenoma or advanced neoplasia (including CRC) and screening-related harms (including bleeding or perforation). Results: All 5999 participants (median age, 56 years; women, 61.9%) were included in the intention-to-screen analyses. Screening process completion was 38.4% in the colonoscopy outreach group, 28.0% in the FIT outreach group, and 10.7% in the usual care group. Compared with the usual care group, between-group differences for completion were higher for both outreach groups (27.7% [95% CI, 25.1% to 30.4%] for the colonoscopy outreach group; 17.3% [95% CI, 14.8% to 19.8%] for FIT outreach group), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (10.4% [95% CI, 7.8% to 13.1%] for the colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group; P < .001 for all comparisons). Compared with usual care, the between-group differences in adenoma and advanced neoplasia detection rates were higher for both outreach groups (colonoscopy outreach group: 10.3% [95% CI, 9.5% to 12.1%] for adenoma and 3.1% [95% CI, 2.0% to 4.1%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons; FIT outreach group: 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.8%] for adenoma and 0.7% [95% CI, -0.2% to 1.6%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .08 and P < .13, respectively), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group: 9.0% [95% CI, 7.3% to 10.7%] for adenoma and 2.4% [95% CI, 1.3% to 3.3%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons). There were no screening-related harms in any groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among persons aged 50 to 64 years receiving primary care at a safety-net institution, mailed outreach invitations offering FIT or colonoscopy compared with usual care increased the proportion completing CRC screening process within 3 years. The rate of screening process completion was higher with colonoscopy than FIT outreach. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01710215.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyOccult BloodColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedSafety-net Providers

Identifiers

PMID28873161
PMCPMC5648645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.