ReviewMedicine and pharmacy reports2019
Colorectal cancer: evolution of screening strategies.
Review in Medicine and pharmacy reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integration of 101 machine learning algorithm combinations to unveil m6A/m1A/m5C/m7G-associated prognostic signature in colorectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Colorectal Cancer in the Gulf Area: Current Practice and Future Suggestions from Expert Opinions.OncoTargets and therapy · 2025Review
- Article
- Detecting colorectal cancer using genetic and epigenetic biomarkers: screening and diagnosis.Journal of medicine and life · 2024Review
- Disparities in Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Individuals: An Ecobiosocial Approach.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Review
- Extracellular vesicles: General features and usefulness in diagnosis and therapeutic management of colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
- Overview of microRNAs as liquid biopsy biomarkers for colorectal cancer sub-type profiling and chemoresistance.Cancer drug resistance (Alhambra, Calif.) · 2021Review
- Non-Invasive Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Overview.Gastrointestinal tumors · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimColorectal cancer is considered to be a major public health problem. It is the third most frequent cancer at a global level and also the fourth most frequent cause of death. Previous scientific findings have proved that a significant percentage of colorectal cancer deaths are due to the abscence of screening. The aim of this review is to present the evolution of the screening strategies by using the most recommended and recent colorectal cancer screening guidelines.
methodsA systematic literature search on the scientific databases was performed, identifying some of the most important colorectal cancer screening guidelines publications.
resultsThe most recent guidelines of American Cancer Society (2018) recommend that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of colorectal cancer should undergo regular screening. All the guidelines have considered fecal occult blood testing (annual or biennial), fecal immunochemical test (annual), flexible sigmoidoscopy (every 5 years) and colonoscopy (every 10 years) as the most preferred screening options. However, there are discrepancies with regards to which tests should be preferred for screening.
conclusionIncreased compliance with colorectal cancer screening recommendations has the potential to improve patients' health and to reduce colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality rates. It is important for health care providers to have an understanding of the risk factors for colorectal cancer and various stages of disease development in order to recommend appropriate screening strategies.
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.