Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32995145›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2020

Colorectal cancer screening completion: An examination of differences by screening modality.

Lila J Finney Rutten, Debra J Jacobson, Gregory D Jenkins, Chun Fan, Emily Weiser, Philip Parks, Mary Doroshenk, Paul J Limburg, Jennifer L St Sauver

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lila J Finney RuttenPopulation Health Science Program, Robert D. and Patricia E. Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Debra J JacobsonPopulation Health Science Program, Robert D. and Patricia E. Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Gregory D JenkinsPopulation Health Science Program, Robert D. and Patricia E. Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Chun FanPopulation Health Science Program, Robert D. and Patricia E. Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Emily WeiserExact Sciences Corporation, Madison, WI, United States.
Philip ParksExact Sciences Corporation, Madison, WI, United States.
Mary DoroshenkExact Sciences Corporation, Madison, WI, United States.
Paul J LimburgExact Sciences Corporation, Madison, WI, United States.
Jennifer L St SauverPopulation Health Science Program, Robert D. and Patricia E. Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USExact Sciences (United States) · USMayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cancer early detectionCancer screeningColorectal cancerCRC, Colorectal CancerDNA, Deoxyribonucleic AcidFIT, Fecal Immunochemical TestFOBT, Fecal Occult Blood Testmt-sDNA, Multi-Target Stool DNAREP, Rochester Epidemiology ProjectUSPSTF, United States Preventive Services Task ForceUS, United States

Identifiers

PMID32995145
PMCPMC7516167
OpenAlexW3085658958

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.