Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35205821›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

A Global Evaluation of the Performance Indicators of Colorectal Cancer Screening with Fecal Immunochemical Tests and Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Hanyue Ding, Jiaye Lin, Zijun Xu, Xiao Chen, Harry H X Wang, Liwen Huang, Junjie Huang, Zhijie Zheng, Martin C S Wong

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Geographical Disparities in Faecal Immunochemical Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation and Positivity Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Hanyue DingJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9977-0985
Jiaye LinJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8858-620X
Zijun XuJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China.
Xiao ChenJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China.
Harry H X WangSchool of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0361-6527
Liwen HuangJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China.
Junjie HuangJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2382-4443
Zhijie ZhengSchool of Public Health, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing 100191, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0233-5010
Martin C S WongJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7706-9370

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: To summarize the achievements of the performance indicators of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs that used the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) as a primary screening modality and colonoscopy as a subsequent confirmatory test. (2) Methods: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from inception to September 2020. We included original articles published in English, and performed hand searching for relevant national reports. We generated pooled achievement estimates of the performance indicators by "metaprop" (R software 3.6.3). Meta-regression analyses and subgroup analyses were also conducted. (3) Results: We included 93 studies involving nearly 90 million people-times. The participation rate ranged from 6.80% to 95.98%, which was associated with study type, continents, FIT number, age, and round. The pooled FIT invalid rate and positivity rate were 1.08% and 7.28%, respectively. The pooled estimates of FIT detection were 2.26% for adenoma, 1.26% for advanced adenoma, and 0.28% for CRC. In addition, only seven studies reported that their colonoscopy compliance rate reached 90% among 69 studies. The colonoscopy completion rate (21/40 studies > 95%) and the complication rate (18/27 studies < 0.5%) were acceptable. (4) Conclusions: Our findings could help to identify the areas that could be improved and finally optimize the CRC screening programs.

Indexed as

colorectal neoplasmearly detection of cancerperformance indicator

Identifiers

PMID35205821
PMCPMC8870403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.