Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33433802›Full record

SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2021

Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Are Primarily Based on Low-Moderate-Quality Evidence.

Simcha Weissman, Alexander Goldowsky, Muhammad Aziz, Tej I Mehta, Sachit Sharma, Megan Lipcsey, Trent Walradt, Umair Iqbal, Sameh Elias, Joseph D Feuerstein

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Simcha WeissmanDepartment of Medicine, Hackensack Meridian Health, Palisades Medical Center, North Bergen, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0796-6217
Alexander GoldowskyDepartment of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Muhammad AzizDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA.
Tej I MehtaDepartment of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Sachit SharmaDepartment of Medicine, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA.
Megan LipcseyDepartment of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Trent WalradtDepartment of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Umair IqbalDepartment of Medicine, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Sameh EliasDepartment of Medicine, Hackensack Meridian Health, Palisades Medical Center, North Bergen, NJ, USA.
Joseph D FeuersteinCenter for Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Division of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. jfeuerst@bidmc.harvard.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOwning to colorectal cancer's (CRC) high mortality, multiple societies developed screening guidelines.

aimsWe aimed to assess the overall quality of CRC screening guidelines.

methodsA systematic search was performed to review CRC screening guidelines for conflicts of interest (COI), recommendation quality and strength, external document review, use of patient representative, and recommendation age-as per Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards. In addition, recommendations were compared between guidelines/societies. Statistical analysis was conducted using R.

resultsTwelve manuscripts were included in final analysis. Not all guidelines reported on COI, provided a grading method, underwent external review, or included patient representation. 14.5%, 34.2%, and 51.3% of recommendations were based on high-, moderate-, and low-quality evidence, respectively. 27.8%, 54.6%, and 17.5% of recommendations were strong, weak/conditional, and did not provide a strength, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence and strong recommendations did not significantly differ across societies, nor were significant associations between publication year and evidence quality seen (P = 0.4).

conclusionsWhile the majority of the CRC guidelines contain aspects of the standards set forth by the IOM, there is an overall lack of adherence. As over 85% of recommendations are based on low-moderate quality evidence, further studies on CRC screening are warranted to improve the overall quality of evidence.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsColorectal cancerGuidelinesQuality evidenceScreening recommendations

Identifiers

PMID33433802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.