ArticleCancers2020
Triage May Improve Selection to Colonoscopy and Reduce the Number of Unnecessary Colonoscopies.
Article in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Blood-Based Circulating Tumor DNA Assays for Early Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review of Performance in Asymptomatic Screening Populations.International journal of cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs in Latin America: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Serum methylation of GALNT9, UPF3A, WARS, and LDB2 as noninvasive biomarkers for the early detection of colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas.Clinical epigenetics · 2023Article
- Improved risk scoring systems for colorectal cancer screening in Shanghai, China.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- Evidence-Based Selection on the Appropriate FIT Cut-Off Point in CRC Screening Programs in the COVID Pandemic.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
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
Implementation of population screening for colorectal cancer by direct colonoscopy or follow-up colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test has challenged the overall capacity of bowel examinations. Certain countries are facing serious colonoscopy capacity constraints, which have led to waiting lists and long time latency of follow-up examinations. Various options for improvement are considered, including increased cut-off values of the fecal blood tests. Results from major clinical studies of blood-based, cancer-associated biomarkers have, however, led to focus on a Triage concept for improved selection to colonoscopy. The Triage test may include subject age, concentration of hemoglobin in a feces test and a combination of certain blood-based cancer-associated biomarkers. Recent results have indicated that Triage may reduce the requirements for colonoscopy by around 30%. Such results may be advantageous for the capacity, the healthcare budgets and in particular, the subjects, who do not need an unnecessary, unpleasant and risk-associated bowel examination.
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.