ArticleBMC cancer2017
Perceptions of colorectal cancer screening and recommendation behaviors among physicians in Korea.
Article in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge, Beliefs, and Behaviors Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Koreans.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Language as a barrier to colorectal cancer screening in flanders: an ecological study.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Balancing early detection and over-screening: Evaluating colonoscopy's role in shaping colorectal cancer trends in Korea.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Screening Practices, Knowledge and Adherence Among Health Care Professionals at a Tertiary Care Hospital.International journal of general medicine · 2021Article
- Trends in Participation Rates of the National Cancer Screening Program among Cancer Survivors in Korea.Cancers · 2020Article
- Geospatial analysis of the influence of family doctor on colorectal cancer screening adherence.PloS one · 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPhysician recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have consistently been shown to be a strong predictor of screening. The aim of this study was to investigate perceptions of CRC screening modalities and recommendation behaviors among physicians in Korea.
methodsA cross-sectional, nationally representative survey conducted between November 2013 and February 2014. In total, 379 physicians (241 primary care physicians and 138 physicians affiliated with the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases responded to this survey (overall response rate of 31.4%).
resultsAbout 29% of all respondents "always" recommended and about 67% "sometimes" recommended CRC screening. Colonoscopy was perceived as an effective primary screening tool for CRC, and 80% of the physicians recommended colonoscopy for CRC screening. Only 7% recommended FOBT. In multivariate analysis, recommending FOBT was associated with stronger belief in the screening efficacy of FOBT (aOR 3.70, 95% CI 2.09, 6.57), weaker belief in the screening efficacy of colonoscopy (aOR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12, 0.69), and negative decisional balance for colonoscopy screening (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71, 0.95).
conclusionsAlthough FOBT is provided free-of-charge through a nationwide CRC screening program, colonoscopy was more commonly recommended and preferred by physicians.
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.