Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30518470›Full record

Trial reportDeutsches Arzteblatt international2018

Invitation to Screening Colonoscopy in the Population at Familial Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

Alexander Bauer, Jürgen F Riemann, Thomas Seufferlein, Max Reinshagen, Stephan Hollerbach, Ulrike Haug, Susanne Unverzagt, Stephanie Boese, Madeleine Ritter-Herschbach, Patrick Jahn and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexander BauerInstitute for General Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle; Institute for Health and Nursing Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle; Director Emeritus, Department of Medicine C, Ludwigshafen Hospital, c/o LebensBlicke Foundation, Ludwigshafen; Department of Internal Medicine I, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm; Department of Medicine I, Braunschweig Municipal Hospital, Braunschweig; Department of Gastroenterology, Celle General Hospital, Celle; Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen; Faculty of Human and Health Sciences, University of Bremen; Institute for Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics, and Information Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle; Nursing Research Unit, Halle University Hospital, Halle: Madeleine Ritter-Herschbach, MScN, RN; Department for Health, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, UK.
Jürgen F Riemann
Thomas Seufferlein
Max Reinshagen
Stephan Hollerbach
Ulrike Haug
Susanne Unverzagt
Stephanie Boese
Madeleine Ritter-Herschbach
Patrick Jahn
Thomas Frese
Michael Harris
Margarete Landenberger
Wittenberg University · USUniversity Hospital in Halle · DEKlinikum Ludwigshafen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening colonoscopy can lower the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC), yet participation rates are low even in groups at high risk. The goal of this study was to double the rate of participation in screening colonoscopy among persons at familial risk and then to determine the frequency of neoplasia in this risk group.

methodsIn a nationwide, cluster-randomized, multicenter study, first-degree relatives (FDR) of patients with CRC across Germany received written informational materials concerning the familial risk of CRC, along with an invitation to undergo colonoscopy. Participants in the intervention group were additionally counseled by nurses over the telephone. The primary endpoint of the study was colonoscopy uptake within 30 days.

resultsThe participants' mean age was 50.8 years. The colonoscopy uptake rates were 99/125 (79%) in the intervention group and 97/136 (71%) in the control group (RR = 1.11; 95% confidence interval [0.97; 1.28]). A polypectomy was performed in 72 of 196 asymptomatic persons (37%). In 13 cases (7%), an advanced neoplasia was detected; two of these persons had colon cancer (stages T0 and T1). 42% of the participants expressed barriers against colonoscopy. 22 reported mild side effects; there were no serious side effects.

conclusionAdditional counseling by nurses over the telephone does not increase the participation rate. Approaching patients who have CRC is an opportunity to increase the participation of their first-degree relatives in screening colonoscopy. The frequency of neoplasia that was found in this study underscores the need to screen relatives even before they reach the usual age threshold for screening.

Indexed as

AdultAgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCounselingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGermanyHealth PromotionHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePatient ParticipationRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID30518470
PMCPMC6293122
OpenAlexW2897492741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.