Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32143683›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2020

What is the effectiveness of various invitation methods to a colonoscopy in the early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer? Protocol of a systematic review.

Undine Antonia Stark, Thomas Frese, Susanne Unverzagt, Alexander Bauer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Colorectal cancer-related resource utilization and healthcare costs in Saudi Arabia.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Undine Antonia StarkInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Medical Faculty, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany. undine.stark@student.uni-halle.de.
Thomas FreseInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Medical Faculty, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Susanne UnverzagtInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Medical Faculty, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Alexander BauerInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Medical Faculty, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg · DELeipzig University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer, a prevalent malignancy worldwide, is associated with numerous modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors that play a role in the early detection and successful treatment of cancer. Despite improvements in the availability and quality of screening methods, especially colonoscopy, and the substantial survival benefits of the early detection of colorectal cancer, patient participation remains low due to clinical reasons and patient barriers. Studies around the world have used various methods of invitation in order to promote patient uptake of colonoscopies. The main objective of this systematic review is to analyze the association between certain invitation procedures, the participation in colonoscopies, and important patient outcomes in the early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer.

methodWe will systematically search in electronic databases including Medline via PubMed and Ovid, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the Cochrane Library. All studies will be described in a table of study characteristics with a risk of bias assessment. In addition, two authors will independently rate the overall quality of evidence for the critical outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group approach. Discrepancies regarding the inclusion of studies, data extraction, or risk of bias assessment will be resolved independently by one other reviewer. Due to the heterogeneous design of the studies that will be evaluated in this review, synthesizing data from these studies in the form of a meta-analysis may not be possible. In this instance, we can conduct a descriptive synthesis of data from these studies. DISCUSSION: The results that arise from this systematic review will reflect the influence that various invitation procedures to a colonoscopy have on patient participation in these screenings. Drawing conclusions about the efficiency of various invitation methods to a colonoscopy can provide valuable information to both clinicians and patients and may not only improve future invitation-based patient recruitment to colonoscopy screenings, but also shape guidelines regarding prevention of colorectal cancer. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019128645.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerColonoscopyHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicPatient ParticipationSystematic Reviews as TopicColonoscopyColorectal cancerColorectal cancer screeningDetectionInvitationPrevention

Identifiers

PMID32143683
PMCPMC7059336
OpenAlexW3010785591

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.