Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35316477›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2022

Optimal Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Shailavi Jain, Jetrina Maque, Artin Galoosian, Antonia Osuna-Garcia, Folasade P May

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Colorectal Cancer Test Completion among Adults Aged 45 to 75 in an Integrated Healthcare System: A Retrospective Analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Diagnostic Performance of [World journal of nuclear medicine · 2025
    Review
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shailavi JainDepartment of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA Ronald Reagan Medical Center, University of California Los Angeles, 757 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Jetrina MaqueDepartment of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA Ronald Reagan Medical Center, University of California Los Angeles, 757 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Artin GaloosianDepartment of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA Ronald Reagan Medical Center, University of California Los Angeles, 757 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Antonia Osuna-GarciaLouise M. Darling Biomedical Library, University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Health Sciences, 12-077, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1798, USA.
Folasade P MayDepartment of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA Ronald Reagan Medical Center, University of California Los Angeles, 757 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. Fmay@mednet.ucla.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6706-8171
University of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementColorectal cancer (CRC) imposes significant morbidity and mortality, yet it is also largely preventable with evidence-based screening strategies. In May 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated guidance, recommending screening begin at age 45 for average-risk individuals to reduce CRC incidence and mortality in the United States (US). The Task Force recommends screening with one of several screening strategies: high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test (HSgFOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, computed tomographic (CT) colonography (virtual colonoscopy), flexible sigmoidoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy with FIT, or traditional colonoscopy. In addition to these recommended options, there are several emerging and novel CRC screening modalities that are not yet approved for first-line screening in average-risk individuals. These include blood-based screening or "liquid biopsy," colon capsule endoscopy, urinary metabolomics, and stool-based microbiome testing for the detection of colorectal polyps and/or CRC. In order to maximize CRC screening uptake in the US, patients and providers should engage in informed decision-making about the benefits and limitations of recommended screening options to determine the most appropriate screening test. Factors to consider include the invasiveness of the test, test performance, screening interval, accessibility, and cost. In addition, health systems should have a programmatic approach to CRC screening, which may include evidence-based strategies such as patient education, provider education, mailed screening outreach, and/or patient navigation, to maximize screening participation.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerColonoscopyHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOccult BloodSigmoidoscopyUnited Statescolonoscopycolorectal cancer screeningCT colonographyfecal immunochemical testliquid biopsymulti-target stool DNAsigmoidoscopy

Identifiers

PMID35316477
PMCPMC8989803
OpenAlexW4221111564

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.