Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29963366›Full record

ReviewPreventive medicine reports2018

Have we increased our efforts to identify strategies which encourage colorectal cancer screening in primary care patients? A review of research outputs over time.

Natalie Dodd, Elise Mansfield, Mariko Carey, Christopher Oldmeadow, Rob Sanson-Fisher

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Preventive medicine reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Colorectal cancer: evolution of screening strategies.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2019
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Natalie DoddHealth Behaviour Research Collaborative, School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Elise MansfieldHealth Behaviour Research Collaborative, School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Mariko CareyHealth Behaviour Research Collaborative, School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Christopher OldmeadowHunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia.
Rob Sanson-FisherHealth Behaviour Research Collaborative, School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Hunter Medical Research Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Globally, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain suboptimal. Primary care practitioners are supported by clinical practice guidelines which recommend they provide routine CRC screening advice. Published research can provide evidence to improve CRC screening in primary care, however this is dependent on the type and quality of evidence being produced. This review aimed to provide a snapshot of trends in the type and design quality of research reporting CRC screening among primary care patients across three time points: 1993-1995, 2003-2005 and 2013-2015. Four databases were searched using MeSH headings and keywords. Publications in peer-reviewed journals which reported primary data on CRC screening uptake among primary care patients were eligible for inclusion. Studies meeting eligibility criteria were coded as observational or intervention. Intervention studies were further coded to indicate whether or not they met Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) study design criteria. A total of 102 publications were included. Of these, 65 reported intervention studies and 37 reported observational studies. The proportion of each study type did not change significantly over time. The majority of intervention studies met EPOC design criteria at each time point. The majority of research in this field has focused on testing strategies to increase CRC screening in primary care patients, as compared to research describing rates of CRC screening in this population. Further research is needed to determine which effective interventions are most likely to be adopted into primary care.

Indexed as

Colorectal cancerEarly detection of cancerPrimary careReviewStudy design

Identifiers

PMID29963366
PMCPMC6022456
OpenAlexW2803507359

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.