Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31860105›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Association of Race and Socioeconomic Status With Colorectal Cancer Screening, Colorectal Cancer Risk, and Mortality in Southern US Adults.

Shaneda Warren Andersen, William J Blot, Loren Lipworth, Mark Steinwandel, Harvey J Murff, Wei Zheng

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

89 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 141 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Systematic Review of Colorectal Cancer Screening-Related Apps.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Effect of Patient Navigation on Completion of Lung Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Populations.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2024
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shaneda Warren AndersenVanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.
William J BlotVanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.
Loren LipworthVanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.
Mark SteinwandelInternational Epidemiology Field Station, Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Nashville, Tennessee.
Harvey J MurffDepartment of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Wei ZhengVanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee.
Vanderbilt University · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

Southern Community Cohort StudyR01CA092447 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI BLOT, WILLIAM J., ZHENG, WEI · 2001 to 2015
$74.0M
Translational Analysis CoreP30DK058404 · NIDDK · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI RICHARD M. PEEK · 2002 to 2026
$29.9M
Vitamin D and colorectal cancer risk: an integrated molecular and genetic epidemiologic studyR00CA207848 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI WARREN ANDERSEN, SHANEDA · 2018 to 2020
$601k
NCI NIH HHS R00 CA207848NCI NIH HHS R01 CA092447NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK058404
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is rarely studied in populations who may face additional barriers to participate in cancer screening, such as African American individuals and individuals with low socioeconomic status (SES). Objective: To examine the associations of CRC screening and modalities with CRC incidence and mortality by race and SES. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the Southern Community Cohort Study, which enrolled more than 85 000 participants from community health centers or stratified random sampling of the general population in 12 states in the southeastern United States. The present study included data from cohort members who were eligible for CRC screening as recommended by expert organizations based on age and family history. Participants completed questionnaires from 2002 to 2009 and were contacted again from 2008 to 2012. Linkages to state cancer registries and the National Death Index as of December 31, 2016, identified incident CRC and vital status. Data analysis was performed from January 1, 2018, to October 30, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident CRC (n = 632) and mortality (n = 10 003). Cox proportional hazards regression models evaluated associations between screening modalities and CRC risk and mortality. Information on fecal occult blood test use was only obtained on the follow-up questionnaire. Self-identified race was measured as African American/black, white, or other, and SES was defined by household income. Results: This study included 47 596 participants (median baseline age, 54 years [interquartile range, 10 years]; 32 185 [67.6%] African American; 28 884 [60.7%] female; and 26 075 [54.8%] with household income <$15 000). A total of 24 432 participants (63.9%) had never undergone CRC testing at baseline. The CRC testing assessed at baseline and follow-up interviews was associated with significant CRC risk reduction (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44-0.70 for ever colonoscopy at baseline). Results were similar in analyses stratified by race (African American: HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.85; white: HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.70) and household income (<$15 000: HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.86, ≥$15 000: HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35-0.69). Ever sigmoidoscopy at baseline was associated with CRC risk reduction (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.87), and undergoing fecal occult blood test in the interval between baseline and follow-up interview was associated with CRC risk reduction (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.98). Inverse associations were also observed between CRC mortality and receipt of colonoscopy (HR for women, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.21-0.73; HR for men, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.40-1.18) and sigmoidoscopy (HR for women, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16-0.85; HR for men, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.46-1.47); however, the association did not extend to fecal occult blood test (HR for women, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.62-1.70; HR for men, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.55-1.93). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, CRC test rates were low among African American individuals and those with low SES. The findings suggest that screening, particularly with colonoscopy, is significantly associated with reduced risk of CRC and mortality. The CRC disparities experienced by individuals with low SES and African American individuals may be lessened by improving access to and uptake of CRC screening.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesAdultAttitude to HealthCohort StudiesColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEthnicityFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient ComplianceSocial ClassSoutheastern United States

Identifiers

PMID31860105
PMCPMC6991213
OpenAlexW2996207027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.