ReviewRisk management and healthcare policy2022
Disparities in Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Individuals: An Ecobiosocial Approach.
Review in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Value of high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced scanning in the preoperative diagnosis of rectal cancer in older patients.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regardless of the high global burden of colorectal cancer (CRC), the uptake of CRC screening varies across countries. This systematic review aimed to provide a picture of the disparities in recommendations for CRC screening in average-risk individuals using an ecobiosocial approach. It was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The literature search was conducted through Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and EBSCOHost. Full-text guidelines which were published between 2011 and 2021, along with guidelines which provided recommendations on CRC screening in average-risk individuals, were included in the review. However, guidelines focusing only on a single screening modality were excluded. Fourteen guidelines fulfilling the eligibility criteria were retained for the final review and analysis. Quality assessment of each guideline was performed using the AGREE II instrument. Disparities in guidelines identified in this review were classified into ecological (screening modalities and strategies), biological (recommended age, gender and ethnicities), and social (smoking history, socioeconomic status, and behavior) factors. In general, unstandardized practices in CRC screening for average-risk individuals are likely attributable to the inconsistent and non-specific recommendations in the literature. This review calls on stakeholders and policymakers to review the existing colorectal cancer screening practices and pursue standardization.
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.