ArticleCancer medicine2019
Physician-office vs home uptake of colorectal cancer screening using FOBT/FIT among screening-eligible US adults.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-Collected Vaginal Specimens for HPV Testing: Recommendations From the Enduring Consensus Cervical Cancer Screening and Management Guidelines Committee.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2025Guideline
- Reply to: Colorectal Cancer Screening and Social Vulnerability Index: Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- A proteomic classifier panel for early screening of colorectal cancer: a case control study.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- IgM and IgA augmented autoantibody signatures improve early-stage detection of colorectal cancer prior to nodal and distant spread.Clinical & translational immunology · 2021Article
- Physician-office vs home uptake of colorectal cancer screening using FOBT/FIT among screening-eligible US adults.Cancer medicine · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines of the American Cancer Society and US Preventive Services Task Force specify that colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT)/fecal immunochemical test (FIT) should be done at home. We therefore examined the prevalence and correlates of CRC screening using FOBT/FIT in physicians' office vs at home.
methodsAnalysis of 9493 respondents 50-75 years old from the Cancer Control Supplement of the 2015 National Health Interview Survey was conducted. Weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the determinants of in-office vs home use of FOBT/FIT for CRC screening.
resultsOf the overall sample of screening-eligible adults (n = 9403), only 937 (10.4%) respondents underwent CRC screening using FOBT/FIT within the past year; among this screening population, 279 (28.3%) respondents were screened in-office. We found that sociodemographic factors alone, not CRC risk factors, determined whether FOBT/FIT would be used in-office or at home. Hispanics had greater odds of being screened in-office using FOBT/FIT (aOR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.05-3.99). Compared with those 50-59 years old, respondents 70-75 years old were less likely to be screened in-office using FOBT/FIT (aOR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.25-0.79). Similarly, individuals residing in the Western region of the country had lower odds of in-office FOBT/FIT (aOR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.11-0.58).
conclusionAmid low overall uptake rates of FOBT/FIT in the United States, in-physician office testing is high, indicative of a missed opportunity for effective screening and poor adherence of physicians to national guidelines. Sociodemographic factors are determinants of uptake of FOBT/FIT at home or in-office and should be considered in designing interventions aimed at providers and the general population.
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.