SynthesisThe British journal of radiology2020
Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in The British journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Single-round performance of colorectal cancer screening programs: a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review.Journal of medical screening · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of alverine citrate plus simethicone in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Review
- Colorectal Cancer Screening with Computed Tomography Colonography: Single Region Experience in Kazakhstan.Clinical endoscopy · 2022Article
- The choice and definition of summary measure for meta-analysis of clinical studies with binary outcomes: effect on clinical interpretation.The British journal of radiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the participation rate between CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in screening population in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsA search was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. RCTs that included screening populations and reported participation number were assessed. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the bias and quality. Risk ratio (RR) was used to present the results. The non-participation rate was analyzed to verify the results of participation rate.
resultsFive of 760 studies, with a total of 15,974 invitees, were included. The participation rate was higher at CTC (28.8%) than colonoscopy (20.8%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (RR = 1.26;
conclusionThe participation rate was higher at CTC than colonoscopy, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. But the non-participation rate was with statistical difference. Screening population seemed more likely to participate the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. Statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The screening populations seem more likely to participate in the CTC, especially the reduced/no cathartic preparation CTC. The statistical evidence was provided for more large RCTs are needed in the future.
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.