ArticlePreventive medicine reports2020
Colorectal cancer screening completion: An examination of differences by screening modality.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cancer information seeking and awareness of multi-cancer detection tests among U.S. adults: a cross-sectional study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Adherence to Obstetrician-/Gynecologist-Ordered Multi-target Stool DNA Test Screening and Follow-Up Colonoscopy: A National Multi-payer Study of US Women.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Real-World Completion of Multitarget Stool DNA Testing Among Texas Medicare Beneficiaries: Associations With Payer Type, Digital Outreach, and Social Vulnerability.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026Article
- Real-World Adherence and Follow-Up Colonoscopy After Multitarget Stool DNA Screening in a Regional Healthcare System.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026Article
- Adherence to multi-target stool DNA colorectal cancer screening and clinical follow-up in the Hartford HealthCare system.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Follow-up Colorectal Cancer Screening After Negative-Result and Positive-Result Multitarget Stool DNA Tests: A Population-Based Study in Southeast Minnesota.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2025Article
- Navigating the evolving landscape of colorectal cancer screening with a practical framework: a comprehensive analysis of existing and emerging technologies for informed decision-making.Oncology reviews · 2025Review
- Adherence to Follow-Up Colonoscopy After a Positive Stool-Based Test in Patients Aged 45-49 Years: Real-World Differences Between Multitarget Stool DNA Testing and Fecal Immunochemical or Fecal Occult Blood Testing.Gastro hep advances · 2025Article
- Article
- Positive Predictive Value for Multitarget Stool DNA After Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery.Gastro hep advances · 2023Article
- The impact of multi-target stool DNA testing in clinical practice in the United States: A real-world evidence retrospective study.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Cross-sectional adherence with the multi-target stool DNA test for colorectal cancer screening in a large, nationally insured cohort.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Article
- Impact of Patient Adherence to Stool-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening and Colonoscopy Following a Positive Test on Clinical Outcomes.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is broadly recommended, using one of several endorsed test options. However, CRC screening participation rates remain below national goals. To gain further insights regarding recent, population-based patterns in overall and test-specific CRC screening participation, we conducted a retrospective study of adults, ages 50-75 years, utilizing comprehensive data resources from the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP). Among residents of Olmsted County, MN eligible and due for CRC screening, we identified 5818 residents across three annual cohorts who completed screening between 1/1/2016 and 12/31/2018. We summarized CRC screening rates as incidence per 1000 population and used Poisson regression to test for overall and mode-specific CRC trends. We also analyzed rates of follow-up colonoscopy within 6-months after a positive stool-based screening result. While no significant differences over time were observed in overall CRC screening incidence rates among those due for screening, we observed a statistically significant increase in mt-sDNA test and statistically significant decreases in screening colonoscopy and FIT/FOBT test completion rates; differences in screening overall and by modality were observed by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The diagnostic colonoscopy follow-up rate within six months after a positive stool-based test was significantly higher following mt-sDNA (84.9%) compared to FIT/FOBT (42.6%). In this retrospective, population-based study, overall CRC screening incidence rates remained stable from 2016 to 2018, while test-specific rates for mt-sDNA significantly increased and decreased for colonoscopy and FIT/FOBT. Adherence with follow-up colonoscopy after a positive stool-based test was significantly higher among patients who underwent mt-sDNA screening compared to FIT/FOBT.
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.