ReviewCancers2021
The Effects of Different Invitation Schemes on the Use of Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Text Messaging Versus Postal Reminders to Improve Participation in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Trial
- Effectiveness and Acceptability of Targeted Text Message Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Randomized Controlled Trial (M-TICS Study).JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Trial
- [Prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Optimizing colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening by low-barrier, low-threshold pretesting.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Inter-physician heterogeneity in colorectal cancer screening participation in France: a study based on the French National Health Data System.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- Effects of a telephone intervention on breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening: A meta-analysis.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Review
- Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Occult Blood Test Versus No Screening: A Comparative Analysis of Long-Term Effects.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2026Observational
- Leveraging Multi-Sectoral Partnership for Colorectal Cancer Education and Screening in the African American Community: A Protocol and Preliminary Results.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Article
- Article
- Management of gastrointestinal bleed in the intensive care setting, an updated literature review.World journal of critical care medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluation of skin cancer screening in Germany - a Microsimulation.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2025Article
- Canadian colorectal cancer screening programs: How do they measure up using the International Agency for Research on Cancer criteria for organized screening?Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Factors affecting participation in the colorectal cancer screening program: a cross-sectional population study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Observational
- Impact of demographic changes and screening colonoscopy on long-term projection of incident colorectal cancer cases in Germany: A modelling study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2022Article
- Colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy in France: how many people are actually covered? Focus on the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region.European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022Article
- Article
- Striving to optimize colorectal cancer prevention.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 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
Personal invitations for fecal occult blood tests (nowadays mostly fecal immunochemical tests) are increasingly used to raise their usage for colorectal cancer screening. However, there is a large heterogeneity in applied invitation schemes. We aimed to review evidence for the effectiveness of various invitation schemes. The main outcome was the fecal occult blood test usage rate. A systematic search was performed in Medline and Web of Science (up to 9 July 2020). Randomized controlled trials or cluster-randomized controlled trials were eligible, which reported on general invitations for fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening sent to the general population at average colorectal cancer risk. (PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020169409). Overall, 34 studies were included. Invitations with an attached, i.e., mailed fecal occult blood test consistently increased test usage by 4-19.7% points, compared to other methods of test provision. Likewise, the introduction of advance notification consistently led to a higher usage rate, with an increase of 3.3-10.8% points. Reminders showed positive but varying effects by method. With an increase of 8.5-15.8% points, letter or email reminders were more effective than reminders by phone call or text message (0.6-6.5% points). Inconsistent results were found for financial incentives ((-8.4)-20% points) and for added or changed invitation material ((-3.5)-11.8% points). With 3.5-24.7% points, the strongest increases in use were achieved by multifaceted invitation, implementing multiple components. Any invitation scheme was superior over no invitation. Advance notification, mailing of fecal occult blood test, and reminders were consistently shown to have major, complementary potential to increase participation in fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening settings.
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.