Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35505243›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology2022

Current and future colorectal cancer screening strategies.

Aasma Shaukat, Theodore R Levin

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT06165328 (The Comparison of Diagnostic Yield Between Routine Computed Tomography and Colonoscope in Detecting Colorectal Tumors in Patients Who at Risk of Colorectal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 284 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
284citing papers in PubMed, 10 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.

NCT06165328 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

The Comparison of Diagnostic Yield Between Routine Computed Tomography and Colonoscope in Detecting Colorectal Tumors in Patients Who at Risk of Colorectal Cancer

TypeobservationalSponsorHat Yai Medical Education CenterRan2024 to 2024Enrolled241ConditionsPatients at Risk of Colorectal CancerArmsCT and colonoscopy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

284 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Guideline
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Aasma ShaukatDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, NY, USA.
Theodore R LevinKaiser Permanente Medical Center, Walnut Creek, CA, USA. Theodore.Levin@kp.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0842-2377

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite strong evidence of effectiveness, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused. Currently, there are several options for CRC screening, each with its own performance characteristics and considerations for practice. This Review aims to cover current CRC screening guidelines and highlight future blood-based and imaging-based options for screening. In current practice, the leading non-invasive option is the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) based on its high specificity, good sensitivity, low cost and ease of use in mailed outreach programmes. There are currently five blood-based CRC screening tests in varying stages of evaluation, including one that is currently sold in the USA as a laboratory-developed test. There are ongoing studies on the diagnostic accuracy and longitudinal performance of blood tests and they have the potential to disrupt the CRC screening landscape. Imaging-based options, including the colon capsule, MR colonography and the CT capsule, are also being tested in active studies. As the world attempts to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and adapts to the start of CRC screening among people at average risk starting at age 45 years, non-invasive options will become increasingly important.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsCOVID-19ColonoscopyEarly Detection of CancerHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOccult BloodPandemics

Identifiers

PMID35505243
PMCPMC9063618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.