Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28936633›Full record

Trial reportFamilial cancer2018

Evaluation of an online family history tool for identifying hereditary and familial colorectal cancer.

F G J Kallenberg, C M Aalfs, F O The, C A Wientjes, A C Depla, M W Mundt, P M M Bossuyt, E Dekker

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Familial cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Evidenced-Based Screening Strategies for a Positive Family History.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 2020
    Review
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

F G J KallenbergDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C M AalfsDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
F O TheDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Hospital East, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C A WientjesDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Hospital West, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A C DeplaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical Center Slotervaart, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M W MundtDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Flevo Hospital, Almere, The Netherlands.
P M M BossuytDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
E DekkerDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. e.dekker@amc.uva.nl.
University of Amsterdam · NLOLVG · NLAcademic Medical Center · NLSlotervaartziekenhuis · NL

Funding

Maag Lever Darm Stichting TC12-05c
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying a hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome or familial CRC (FCC) in a CRC patient may enable the patient and relatives to enroll in surveillance protocols. As these individuals are insufficiently recognized, we evaluated an online family history tool, consisting of a patient-administered family history questionnaire and an automated genetic referral recommendation, to facilitate the identification of patients with hereditary CRC or FCC. Between 2015 and 2016, all newly diagnosed CRC patients in five Dutch outpatient clinics, were included in a trial with a stepped-wedge design, when first visiting the clinic. Each hospital continued standard procedures for identifying patients at risk (control strategy) and then, after a predetermined period, switched to offering the family history tool to included patients (intervention strategy). After considering the tool-based recommendation, the health care provider could decide on and arrange the referral. Primary outcome was the relative number of CRC patients who received screening or surveillance recommendations for themselves or relatives because of hereditary CRC or FCC, provided by genetic counseling. The intervention effect was evaluated using a logit-linear model. With the tool, 46/489 (9.4%) patients received a screening or surveillance recommendation, compared to 35/292 (12.0%) in the control group. In the intention-to-treat-analysis, accounting for time trends and hospital effects, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.58). A family history tool does not necessarily assist in increasing the number of CRC patients and relatives enrolled in screening or surveillance recommendations for hereditary CRC or FCC. Other interventions should be considered.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGenetic CounselingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMaleMedical History TakingMiddle AgedOnline SystemsFamilial colorectal cancerFamily historyGenetic counselingHereditary colorectal cancerSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID28936633
PMCPMC5999176
OpenAlexW2758132033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.