SynthesisEuropean journal of cancer care2021
Diagnostic accuracy of follow-up tests for detecting colorectal cancer recurrences in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of cancer care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of follow-up tests for detecting colorectal cancer recurrences in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of cancer care · 2021Pooled it
- Preferences of healthcare providers regarding future follow-up care for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer: A discrete choice experiment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- The Bioinformatics and Experimental Analysis of CD276 for Prognosis and Immune Infiltrates in Colon Adenocarcinoma.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- ctDNA in the Management of Resectable & Advanced Colorectal Cancer: Current Status and Future Directions.OncoTargets and therapy · 2026Review
- Non-invasive colorectal cancer screening methods: focusing on diagnostic genetic and epigenetic markers.Cancer cell international · 2025Review
- Review
- HIBRID: histology-based risk-stratification with deep learning and ctDNA in colorectal cancer.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Follow-Up Adherence After Treatment With Curative Intent for Stage II and III Colorectal Cancer Patients.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Novel biomarkers based on dual-energy computed tomography for risk stratification of very early distant metastasis in colorectal cancer after surgery.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Rectal Cancer Tissue Lipidome Differs According to Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- The Correlation Between Survival Benefit of Preoperative Radiotherapy and Pretreatment Carcinoembryonic Antigen Level in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTraditionally, follow-up of colorectal cancer (CRC) is performed in secondary care. In new models of care, the screening part care could be replaced to primary care. We aimed to synthesise evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used screeners in CRC follow-up applicable in primary care: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), ultrasound and physical examination.
methodsMedline, EMBASE, Cochrane Trial Register and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Studies were included if they provided sufficient data for a 2 × 2 contingency tables. QUADAS-2 was used to assess methodological quality. We performed bivariate random effects meta-analysis, generated a hypothetical cohort, and reported sensitivity and specificity.
resultsWe included 12 studies (n = 3223, median recurrence rate 19.6%). Pooled estimates showed a sensitivity for CEA (≤ 5 μg/l) of 59% [47%-70%] and a specificity of 89% [80%-95%]. Only few studies reported sensitivities and specificities for ultrasound (36-70% and 97-100%, respectively) and clinical examination (23% and 27%, respectively).
conclusionIn practice, GPs could perform CEA screening. Radiological examination in a hospital setting should remain part of the surveillance strategy. Personalised algorithms accounting for recurrence risk and changes of CEA-values over time might add to the diagnostic value of CEA in primary care.
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.