Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31187126›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the National Cancer Institute2020

Effectiveness and Cost of Organized Outreach for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

Ma Somsouk, Carly Rachocki, Ajitha Mannalithara, Dianne Garcia, Victoria Laleau, Barbara Grimes, Rachel B Issaka, Ellen Chen, Eric Vittinghoff, Jean A Shapiro and 1 more

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

Trial report in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Effectiveness and Cost of an Enhanced Mailed Fecal Test Outreach Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Findings from the PROMPT Stepped-Wedge Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Trial
  9. Novel Application of Predictive Modeling: A Tailored Approach to Promoting HCC Surveillance in Patients With Cirrhosis.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2022
    Trial
  10. Randomized Controlled Trial of Advance Notification Phone Calls vs Text Messages Prior to Mailed Fecal Test Outreach.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2021
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Colorectal Cancer Test Completion among Adults Aged 45 to 75 in an Integrated Healthcare System: A Retrospective Analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Ma SomsoukDivision of Gastroenterology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Carly RachockiDivision of Gastroenterology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Ajitha MannalitharaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Dianne GarciaDivision of Gastroenterology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Victoria LaleauDivision of Gastroenterology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Barbara GrimesDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Rachel B IssakaClinical Research and Public Health Sciences Divisions, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
Ellen ChenDepartment of Public Health, San Francisco, CA.
Eric VittinghoffDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Jean A ShapiroCDC, Atlanta, GA.
Uri LadabaumDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
University of California, San Francisco · USStanford University · USCDC Foundation · USSan Francisco Department of Public Health · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Developing an intervention to improve follow-up of abnormal fecal immunochemical test results in a safety-net population using a mixed methods approachK08CA241296 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ISSAKA, RACHEL B. · 2019 to 2023
$1.1M
ACL HHS U48DP004998Intramural CDC HHS CC999999NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP004998NCI NIH HHS K08 CA241296NIMHD NIH HHS L32 MD012892
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused, especially in safety-net systems. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of organized outreach using fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) compared with usual care.

methodsPatients age 50-75 years eligible for CRC screening from eight participating primary care safety-net clinics were randomly assigned to outreach intervention with usual care vs usual care alone. The intervention included a mailed postcard and call, followed by a mailed FIT kit, and a reminder phone call if the FIT kit was not returned. The primary outcome was screening participation at 1 year and a microcosting analysis of the outreach activities with embedded long-term cost-effectiveness of outreach. All statistical tests were two-sided.

resultsA total of 5386 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 5434 to usual care. FIT screening was statistically significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (57.9% vs 37.4%, P < .001; difference = 20.5%, 95% confidence interval = 18.6% to 22.4%). In the intervention group, FIT completion rate was higher in patients who had previously completed a FIT vs those who had not (71.9% vs 35.7%, P < .001). There was evidence of effect modification of the intervention by language, and clinic. Outreach cost approximately $23 per patient and $112 per additional patient screened. Projecting long-term outcomes, outreach was estimated to cost $9200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained vs usual care.

conclusionPopulation-based management with organized FIT outreach statistically significantly increased CRC screening and was cost-effective in a safety-net system. The sustainability of the program and any impact of economies of scale remain to be determined.

Indexed as

AgedColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisCosts and Cost AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID31187126
PMCPMC7017601
OpenAlexW2952066800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.