ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2019
Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a microsimulation modelling study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
67 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Global, regional, national burden of colorectal cancer from 1990 to 2021, with projections of incidence to 2050: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 2021.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of Bowel Preparation to Colonoscopy Interval on Preparation Quality and Colonoscopy Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2023Pooled it
- Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Colorectal cancer screening with faecal testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of risk-adapted colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial and modeling analysis.Military Medical Research · 2025Trial
- Effectiveness of Colonoscopy Screening vs Sigmoidoscopy Screening in Colorectal Cancer.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- The Effects of Differing Invitation Models on the Uptake of Immunological Fecal Occult Blood Testing.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2020Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness of Colonoscopy for Screening: What Matters Most?Gut and liver · 2026Article
- GastroMalign: Vision Transformer-Based Framework for Early Detection and Malignancy-Risk Stratification for High-Risk Gastrointestinal Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Circulating tumor DNA methylation-based method for noninvasive detection and stage stratification of colorectal tumor.Clinical epigenetics · 2026Article
- The study on the identification of cross-boundary microbiome enterotypes between high-altitude and coastal populations and their predictive value.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Occult Blood Test Versus No Screening: A Comparative Analysis of Long-Term Effects.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2026Observational
- Unveiling the unique gut microbial signatures in colorectal adenomas: establishment and validation of a cross-kingdom microbiome predictive model.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Overcoming prevalence bias in colorectal cancer screening studies by sensible analyses rather than ignoring it or giving up relevant effect measures.European journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Epidemiological Overview of Colorectal Cancer in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Fecal Immunochemical Test and Risk Assessment: A Population-based Study Including Two Million Participants in China.Journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Discovery and Validation of Novel Biomarkers for Colorectal Neoplasia Detection via Plasma Metabolomics.MedComm · 2025Article
- Exploring metabolomics for colorectal cancer risk prediction: evidence from the UK Biobank and ESTHER cohorts.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- CCT8 drives colorectal cancer progression via the RPL4-MDM2-p53 axis and immune modulation.BMC medical genomics · 2025Article
7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate benefits and harms of different colorectal cancer screening strategies, stratified by (baseline) 15-year colorectal cancer risk.
designMicrosimulation modelling study using MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis-Colon (MISCAN-Colon).
settingA parallel guideline committee ( POPULATION: Norwegian men and women aged 50-79 years with varying 15-year colorectal cancer risk (1-7%). COMPARISONS: Four screening strategies were compared with no screening: biennial or annual faecal immunochemical test (FIT) or single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy at 100% adherence.
main outcome measuresColorectal cancer mortality and incidence, burdens, and harms over 15 years of follow-up. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
resultsOver 15 years of follow-up, screening individuals aged 50-79 at 3% risk of colorectal cancer with annual FIT or single colonoscopy reduced colorectal cancer mortality by 6 per 1000 individuals. Single sigmoidoscopy and biennial FIT reduced it by 5 per 1000 individuals. Colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and annual FIT reduced colorectal cancer incidence by 10, 8, and 4 per 1000 individuals, respectively. The estimated incidence reduction for biennial FIT was 1 per 1000 individuals. Serious harms were estimated to be between 3 per 1000 (biennial FIT) and 5 per 1000 individuals (colonoscopy); harms increased with older age. The absolute benefits of screening increased with increasing colorectal cancer risk, while harms were less affected by baseline risk. Results were sensitive to the setting defined by the guideline panel. Because of uncertainty associated with modelling assumptions, we applied a GRADE rating of low certainty evidence to all estimates.
conclusionsOver a 15 year period, all screening strategies may reduce colorectal cancer mortality to a similar extent. Colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy may also reduce colorectal cancer incidence, while FIT shows a smaller incidence reduction. Harms are rare and of similar magnitude for all 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.