ArticleBMC public health2021
Comparison of colorectal cancer screening between people with and without disability: a nationwide matched cohort study.
Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disability and Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Pooled it
- Do people with disabilities experience disparities in cancer care? A systematic review.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Disability and Participation in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Among People With Intellectual Disabilities.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Multistage feature selection and stacked generalization model for cancer detection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization has recognized that people with disability are among the most marginalized in the world. This study's objective was to investigate the differences in the probability of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) between people with disability and without disability in Taiwan.
methodsThe study participants included people with and without disability from the Disability Registration Database (2012) and the National Health Insurance Research Database (2009-2012). The study included 50- to 69-year-olds with and without disability who were screened from 2011 to 2012 and were alive in 2012. There were 16 categories of disability. After propensity score matching (PSM) between the two groups, conditional logistic regression analysis with control variables was used to investigate the odds ratio (OR) that people with or without disability would undergo CRC screening.
resultsThe percentage of people with disability receiving CRC screening was 21.84%, and the highest rate of those receiving CRC screening (38.72%) was found in people with intractable epilepsy, whose OR was 1.47 times that of people with moving functional limitation (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.17-1.85). The results showed that the probability of CRC screening in people with disability was lower than that in people without disability (OR = 0.88, 95%CI = 0.87-0.89). The probability of receiving CRC screening differed between people with different categories of disability.
conclusionsAlthough the probability of CRC screening in the four categories of disability was higher than that in the general population, overall, people with disability were less likely than people without disability to undergo CRC screening. Health inequalities still exist under National Health Insurance in Taiwan.
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.