ArticleJournal of medical screening2020
Participation in faecal immunochemical testing-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in the northwest of Europe.
Article in Journal of medical screening, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Design and evaluation of a colon cancer mobile application.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Trial
- Language as a barrier to colorectal cancer screening in flanders: an ecological study.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- From small steps to big impact: what we learnt from the National Bowel Screening Programme.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2025Review
- Would initiating colorectal cancer screening from age of 45 be cost-effective in Germany? An individual-level simulation analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Personalised colorectal cancer screening strategies: Information needs of the target population.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- A steep increase in healthcare seeking behaviour in the last months before colorectal cancer diagnosis.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Triage May Improve Selection to Colonoscopy and Reduce the Number of Unnecessary Colonoscopies.Cancers · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared the participation in four faecal immunochemical testing-based screening programmes for colorectal cancer in Flanders, France, Basque country and the Netherlands, to identify factors to further optimize faecal immunochemical testing programmes.
methodBackground information and data on performance indicators were collected and compared for the four programmes.
resultsInvitation method, reminders, funding, faecal immunochemical testing cut-off and follow-up after positive faecal immunochemical testing differed in the four programmes. In France, only an invitation letter is sent by mail, while the sample kit must be collected from the general practitioner. In the other programmes, an invitation letter including the sample kit is sent by mail. Participation rates vary substantially according to the method of invitation, with the highest participation rates in the Netherlands (73.0%) and Basque country (72.4%), followed by Flanders (54.5%) and France (28.6%). Basque country (92.8%) and France (88.4%), the two programmes with most active involvement of general practitioners in referral for colonoscopy, had the highest participation rates for colonoscopy.
conclusionsLarge differences in screening participation observed between programmes according to the invitation method used suggest that changes to the design of the programme, such as including the sample kit with the invitation, or active involvement of GPs, might increase participation.
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.