ArticleIntestinal research2019
Development and validation of a scoring system for advanced colorectal neoplasm in young Korean subjects less than age 50 years.
Article in Intestinal research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk Factors Associated With Young-Onset Colorectal Adenomas and Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Research.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterPooled it
- Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic? Current evidence and future implications.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2022Review
- Emergence of a New Optical Marker for Colorectal Neoplasms: To What Extent Should We Accept It?Clinical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Review
- Risk prediction rule for advanced neoplasia on screening colonoscopy for average-risk individuals.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Prevalence and risk factors of colorectal cancer in Asia.Intestinal research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimColorectal cancer incidence among patients aged ≤50 years is increasing. This study aimed to develop and validate an advanced colorectal neoplasm (ACRN) screening model for young adults aged <50 years in Korea.
methodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study included 59,575 consecutive asymptomatic Koreans who underwent screening colonoscopy between 2003 and 2012 at a single comprehensive health care center. Young Adult Colorectal Screening (YCS) score was developed as an optimized risk stratification model for ACRN using multivariate analysis and was internally validated. The predictive power and diagnostic performance of YCS score was compared with those of Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening (APCS) and Korean Colorectal Screening (KCS) scores.
results41,702 and 17,873 subjects were randomly allocated into the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively, by examination year. ACRN prevalence was 0.9% in both cohorts. YCS score comprised sex, age, alcohol, smoking, obesity, glucose metabolism abnormality, and family history of CRC, with score ranges of 0 to 10. In the validation cohort, ACRN prevalence was 0.6% in the low-risk tier (score, 0-4), 1.5% in the moderate-risk tier (score, 5-7), and 3.4% in the high-risk tier (score, 8-10). ACRN risk increased 2.5-fold (95%CI, 1.8-3.4) in the moderate-risk tier and 5.8-fold (95%CI, 3.4-9.8) in the high-risk tier compared with the low-risk tier. YCS score identified better balanced accuracy (53.9%) than APCS (51.5%) and KCS (50.7%) scores and had relatively good discriminative power (area under the curve=0.660).
conclusionsYCS score based on clinical and laboratory risk factors was clinically effective and beneficial for predicting ACRN risk and targeting screening colonoscopy in adults aged <50 years.
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.