ReviewTherapeutics and clinical risk management2018
Computed tomography colonography versus colonoscopy for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.The British journal of radiology · 2020Pooled it
- The contribution of endoscopy quality measures to the development of interval colorectal cancers in the screening population: a systematic review.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Pooled it
- Two-Step Ensemble Convolutional Neural Networks for Colonoscopic Biopsy Classification Resembling Pathologists' Process.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Systemic inflammatory biomarkers (NLR, SII, PNI and FPR) combined with CEA for predicting advanced colorectal neoplasms: development and temporal validation of a machine learning model.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- A screening model for advanced colorectal neoplasia based on tumor markers and inflammatory indices: a retrospective study with an online risk calculator.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Risk factors, prevention and screening of colorectal cancer: A rising problem.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Why is early detection of colon cancer still not possible in 2023?World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- EVALUATION OF QUALITY INDICATORS OF SCREENING COLONOSCOPY PERFORMED IN A PRIVATE QUARTERNARY HOSPITAL IN BRAZIL.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2024Article
- Review
- Strategies to Improve Persistent Adherence in Colorectal Cancer Screening.Gut and liver · 2020Review
- The Italian Society for Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) accreditation and quality improving project based on international standards.Endoscopy international open · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Optical colonoscopy (OC) is the first choice of investigation for assessing the state of the colon and it is excellent for CRC screening. Newer technologies such as computed tomography colonography (CTC) may also be useful in CRC screening. This systematic review compares the benefits of CTC and OC for CRC screening. This review includes all the available randomized clinical trials comparing CTC and OC for CRC screening in asymptomatic patients. Three studies were included in the systematic review and were submitted for meta-analysis. In the analysis of participation rates, only 2,333 of 8,104 (29%) patients who were invited for screening underwent the CTC, and only 1,486 of the 7,310 (20%) patients who were invited for screening underwent OC. The absolute risk difference in participation rate in the two procedures was 0.1 (95% CI, 0.05-0.14) in favor of CTC. In the analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) detection rates, 2,357 patients undergoing CTC and 1,524 patients undergoing OC were included. Of these, 135 patients (5.7%) who underwent a CTC and 130 patients (8.5%) who underwent an OC were diagnosed with ACN. The absolute risk difference in ACN detection rate in the two procedure types was -0.02 (with a 95% CI between -0.04 and -0.00) in favor of OC. CTC is an option for CRC screening in asymptomatic patients. However, as CTC was inferior in detecting ACN, it should not replace OC, which remains the gold standard.
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.