Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35306592›Full record

ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2022

A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions.

J M Cairns, S Greenley, O Bamidele, D Weller

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Public and Healthcare Professional Attitudes Towards Risk-Stratified Bowel Screening: A Qualitative Study Using an Info-Comic Book.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J M CairnsHull York Medical School, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7HR, UK. Joanne.Cairns@hyms.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5754-4269
S GreenleyHull York Medical School, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7HR, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3788-6437
O BamideleHull York Medical School, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7HR, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2235-9463
D WellerCentre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8112-718X
University of Hull · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Yorkshire Cancer Research HEND405
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn this scoping review, we examined the international literature on risk-stratified bowel screening to develop recommendations for future research, practice and policy.

methodsSix electronic databases were searched from inception to 18 October 2021: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forward and backwards citation searches were also undertaken. All relevant literature were included.

resultsAfter de-deduplication, 3,629 records remained. 3,416 were excluded at the title/abstract screening stage. A further 111 were excluded at full-text screening stage. In total, 102 unique studies were included. Results showed that risk-stratified bowel screening programmes can potentially improve diagnostic performance, but there is a lack of information on longer-term outcomes. Risk models do appear to show promise in refining existing risk stratification guidelines but most were not externally validated and less than half achieved good discriminatory power. Risk assessment tools in primary care have the potential for high levels of acceptability and uptake, and therefore, could form an important component of future risk-stratified bowel screening programmes, but sometimes the screening recommendations were not adhered to by the patient or healthcare provider. The review identified important knowledge gaps, most notably in the area of organisation of screening services due to few pilots, and what risk stratification might mean for inequalities.

conclusionWe recommend that future research focuses on what organisational challenges risk-stratified bowel screening may face and a consideration of inequalities in any changes to organised bowel screening programmes.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelResearchHumansAcceptabilityBowelColorectalFeasibilityRisk-stratifiedScreening

Identifiers

PMID35306592
PMCPMC8934381
OpenAlexW4220772838

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.