ArticlePloS one2021
Positive impact of a faecal-based screening programme on colorectal cancer mortality risk.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Diet-mediated gut microbial community modulation and signature metabolites as potential biomarkers for early diagnosis, prognosis, prevention and stage-specific treatment of colorectal cancer.Journal of advanced research · 2023Review
- The Impact of a Six-Year Existing Screening Programme Using the Faecal Immunochemical Test in Flanders (Belgium) on Colorectal Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Survival: A Population-Based Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Observational
- Overall and stage-specific survival of patients with screen-detected colorectal cancer in European countries: A population-based study in 9 countries.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2022Article
- Clinical Effectiveness of Faecal Immunochemical Test in the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer-An Umbrella Review.Cancers · 2022Review
- Opportunistic Community Screening of Chronic Chagas Disease Using a Rapid Diagnosis Test in Pharmacies in Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain): Study Protocol and Pilot Phase Results.International journal of public health · 2022Article
- Correction: Positive impact of a faecal-based screening programme on colorectal cancer mortality risk.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs is directly related to participation and the number of interval CRCs. The objective was to analyse specific-mortality in a cohort of individuals invited to a CRC screening program according to type of CRC diagnosis (screen-detected cancers, interval cancers, and cancers among the non-uptake group). MATERIAL AND
methodsRetrospective cohort that included invitees aged 50-69 years of a CRC screening program (target population of 85,000 people) in Catalonia (Spain) from 2000-2015 with mortality follow-up until 2020. A screen-detected CRC was a cancer diagnosed after a positive faecal occult blood test (guaiac or immunochemical); an interval cancer was a cancer diagnosed after a negative test result and before the next invitation to the program (≤24 months); a non-uptake cancer was a cancer in subjects who declined screening.
resultsA total of 624 people were diagnosed with CRC (n = 265 screen-detected, n = 103 interval cancers, n = 256 non-uptake). In the multivariate analysis, we observed a 74% increase in mortality rate in the group with interval CRC compared to screen-detected CRC adjusted for age, sex, location and stage (HR: 1.74%, 95% CI:1.08-2.82, P = 0.02). These differences were found even when we restricted for advanced-cancers participants. In the stratified analysis for type of faecal occult blood test, a lower mortality rate was only observed among FIT screen-detected CRCs.
conclusionCRC screening with the FIT was associated with a significant reduction in CRC mortality.
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.