ArticlePreventing chronic disease2019
Variations in Screening Quality in a Federal Colorectal Cancer Screening Program for the Uninsured.
Article in Preventing chronic disease, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating the long-term health impact and program cost-effectiveness of providing direct screening services to low-income, medically underserved patients through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP).Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Colonoscopy quality measures and adherence to follow-up guidelines among endoscopists participating in a U.S. endoscopy registry.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Optimizing tracking and completion of follow-up colonoscopy after abnormal stool tests at health systems participating in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2024Article
- Clinical Outcomes from the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Colorectal Cancer Control Program: 2009-2015.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Cancer Screening Test Receipt - United States, 2018.MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report · 2021Article
- The Effectiveness and Cost to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Federally Qualified Homeless Clinic in Eastern Kentucky.Health promotion practice · 2020Article
- Effectiveness and Cost of Implementing Evidence-Based Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among an Underserved Population in Chicago.Health promotion practice · 2020Article
- The CDC Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2009-2015.Preventing chronic disease · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionScreening can decrease colorectal cancer incidence and mortality and is recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Poor quality of colorectal cancer screening can negate the benefit of screening. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of screening services provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program from July 2009 through June 2015.
methodsWe collected data from the program's 29 grantees, funded to provide colorectal cancer screening and diagnostic services to asymptomatic, low-income, and underinsured or uninsured adults aged 50 to 64. We collected data on the dates and results of all screening and diagnostic tests and, for colonoscopies, on whether the cecum was reached, whether bowel preparation was adequate, and endoscopists' recommendations for the next test.
resultsOverall, 82.9% (range among grantees, 50.0%-97.2%) of positive FOBTs/FITs were followed up by colonoscopy; 95.2% of colonoscopies occurred within 180 days of the positive stool test. Cecal intubation rates ranged among grantees from 94.2% to 100%. Adenoma detection rates met recommended threshold levels for almost all grantees. Recommendations for rescreening and surveillance intervals deviated from guidelines in both directions. Of clients with normal colonoscopies, 85.3% (range, 37.7%-99.7%) were told to return in 10 years, as recommended in national guidelines. Of clients with advanced adenomas, 55.2% (range, 20.0%-84.6%) were told to return in 3 years as recommended, 25.4% (range, 3.8%-56.6%) in 5 or more years, and 18.6% (range, 0%-47.2%) in less than 3 years.
conclusionAlthough overall screening quality was good, it varied considerably. Ongoing monitoring to identify performance problems is essential for all colorectal cancer screening activities, so that efforts designed to improve performance can be targeted to individual clinicians.
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.