Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29358889›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of gastroenterology2018

Systematic review of colorectal cancer screening guidelines for average-risk adults: Summarizing the current global recommendations.

Florence Bénard, Alan N Barkun, Myriam Martel, Daniel von Renteln

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 144 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
144citing papers in PubMed, 14 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

144 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

84 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

4 authors.

Florence BénardDepartment of Medicine, University of Montreal (UdeM), and University of Montreal Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC H2X 0A9, Canada.
Alan N BarkunDivision of Gastroenterology, McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3G 1A4, Canada.
Myriam MartelDivision of Gastroenterology, McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3G 1A4, Canada.
Daniel von RentelnDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Montreal Hospital (CHUM), University of Montreal Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC H2X 0A9, Canada. renteln@gmx.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo summarize and compare worldwide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations in order to identify similarities and disparities.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and ISI Web of knowledge identifying all average-risk CRC screening guideline publications within the last ten years and/or position statements published in the last 2 years. In addition, a hand-search of the webpages of National Gastroenterology Society websites, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the BMJ Clinical Evidence website, Google and Google Scholar was performed.

resultsFifteen guidelines were identified. Six guidelines were published in North America, four in Europe, four in Asia and one from the World Gastroenterology Organization. The majority of guidelines recommend screening average-risk individuals between ages 50 and 75 using colonoscopy (every 10 years), or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS, every 5 years) or fecal occult blood test (FOBT, mainly the Fecal Immunochemical Test, annually or biennially). Disparities throughout the different guidelines are found relating to the use of colonoscopy, rank order between test, screening intervals and optimal age ranges for screening.

conclusionAverage risk individuals between 50 and 75 years should undergo CRC screening. Recommendations for optimal surveillance intervals, preferred tests/test cascade as well as the optimal timing when to start and stop screening differ regionally and should be considered for clinical decision making. Furthermore, local resource availability and patient preferences are important to increase CRC screening uptake, as any screening is better than none.

Indexed as

Occult BloodAgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGlobal HealthHealthcare DisparitiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime FactorsColonoscopyColorectal cancerFecal immunochemical testFecal occult blood testFlexible sigmoidoscopyGuidelinesScreeningSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29358889
PMCPMC5757117

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.