Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34003218›Full record

GuidelineJAMA2021

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

US Preventive Services Task Force, Karina W Davidson, Michael J Barry, Carol M Mangione, Michael Cabana, Aaron B Caughey, Esa M Davis, Katrina E Donahue, Chyke A Doubeni, Alex H Krist and 9 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in JAMA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT06353542 (Barcelona Esquerra Glaucoma Artificial Intelligence-based Screening Program), which is not on this map. Cited by 1,072 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,072citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–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.

NCT06353542 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Barcelona Esquerra Glaucoma Artificial Intelligence-based Screening Program (BEGAS): Artificial Intelligence Applied to Optic Nerve Retinographies for a Glaucoma Screening Program in a Primary-care Setting

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Clinic of BarcelonaRan2024 to 2026Enrolled500ConditionsGlaucomaArmsSoftware analysis, Ophthalmologist examination
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1,072 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Second-generation capsule endoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps: An updated systematic review and comparative meta-analysis of prospective studies.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026
    Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Facilitation of Health Plan-Clinic Partnerships to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening for Rural Medicaid Enrollees: A Qualitative Study.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1,012 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

US Preventive Services Task Force
Karina W DavidsonFeinstein Institute for Medical Research at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York.
Michael J BarryHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Carol M MangioneUniversity of California, Los Angeles.
Michael CabanaAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York.
Aaron B CaugheyOregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Esa M DavisUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Katrina E DonahueUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Chyke A DoubeniMayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Alex H KristFairfax Family Practice Residency, Fairfax, Virginia.
Martha KubikGeorge Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
Li LiUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Gbenga OgedegbeNew York University, New York, New York.
Douglas K OwensStanford University, Stanford, California.
Lori PbertUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester.
Michael SilversteinBoston University, Boston, Massachusetts.
James StevermerUniversity of Missouri, Columbia.
Chien-Wen TsengUniversity of Hawaii, Honolulu.
John B WongTufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, with an estimated 52 980 persons in the US projected to die of colorectal cancer in 2021. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. It is estimated that 10.5% of new colorectal cancer cases occur in persons younger than 50 years. Incidence of colorectal cancer (specifically adenocarcinoma) in adults aged 40 to 49 years has increased by almost 15% from 2000-2002 to 2014-2016. In 2016, 26% of eligible adults in the US had never been screened for colorectal cancer and in 2018, 31% were not up to date with screening. Objective: To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for colorectal cancer in adults 40 years or older. The review also examined whether these findings varied by age, sex, or race/ethnicity. In addition, as in 2016, the USPSTF commissioned a report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Colorectal Cancer Working Group to provide information from comparative modeling on how estimated life-years gained, colorectal cancer cases averted, and colorectal cancer deaths averted vary by different starting and stopping ages for various screening strategies. Population: Asymptomatic adults 45 years or older at average risk of colorectal cancer (ie, no prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease; no personal diagnosis or family history of known genetic disorders that predispose them to a high lifetime risk of colorectal cancer [such as Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis]). Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 50 to 75 years has substantial net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years who have been previously screened has small net benefit. Adults who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in all adults aged 50 to 75 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the patient's overall health, prior screening history, and preferences. (C recommendation).

Indexed as

ColonoscopyEarly Detection of CancerOccult BloodAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRiskSigmoidoscopyTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID34003218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.