Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31146803›Full record

ArticlePreventing chronic disease2019

Variations in Screening Quality in a Federal Colorectal Cancer Screening Program for the Uninsured.

Marion R Nadel, Janet Royalty, Djenaba Joseph, Tanner Rockwell, William Helsel, William Kammerer, Simone C Gray, Jean A Shapiro

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cancer Screening Test Receipt - United States, 2018.MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marion R NadelDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, Mailstop S107-4, Chamblee, GA 30341. Email: mrn1@cdc.gov.
Janet RoyaltyDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Djenaba JosephDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Tanner RockwellInformation Management Services Inc, Calverton, Maryland.
William HelselInformation Management Services Inc, Calverton, Maryland.
William KammererInformation Management Services Inc, Calverton, Maryland.
Simone C GrayDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jean A ShapiroDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USInformation Management Services · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAgedCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.ColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningMedically UninsuredMiddle AgedQuality of Health CareUnited States

Identifiers

PMID31146803
PMCPMC6549419
OpenAlexW2944934806

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.