Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29696175›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2017

Global perspective on colonoscopy use for colorectal cancer screening: A multi-country survey of practicing colonoscopists.

Céline Audibert, Anna Perlaky, Daniel Glass

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Bowel preparation quality scales for colonoscopy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018
    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

3 authors.

Céline AudibertDeerfield Institute, Epalinges, Switzerland.
Anna PerlakyDeerfield Institute, New York, NY, USA.
Daniel GlassDeerfield Institute, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine colorectal cancer screening practices among colonoscopy specialists from 5 countries and inform public health needs in improvement of the ongoing global crisis in colorectal cancer.

methodsAn online survey among colonoscopy specialists was conducted in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, and the United States. The survey covered topics on colonoscopy practices in the screening as well as in the treatment setting, as well as expected trends.

resultsParticipating colonoscopy specialists included 114 physicians from the United States, 81 from France, 80 from Germany, 80 from the United Kingdom, and 156 from Japan. Survey results revealed that 59%-73% of colonoscopies were performed in patients aged 50-75 years old, with 15%-23% performed in patients <50 years old. The proportion of patients with age-based versus symptom-based first colorectal cancer screening varied by country and age. Sedation protocols varied by country; however, rate of incomplete colonoscopy was low in all countries. The proportion of negative first colonoscopies decreased with age in all countries.

conclusionsThis multi-country survey of real-world clinical practices suggests a need for improved participation in population age-based colorectal cancer screening and possibly younger age of screening initiation than currently recommended by guidelines. The variation among countries in the proportion of patients who received their first colonoscopy due to age-based colorectal cancer screening versus symptom-based initial colonoscopy indicates that population-based screening initiatives and improved health outcomes will benefit from public health awareness programs.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyColorectal cancerEuropean UnionJapanScreeningUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29696175
PMCPMC5898517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.