ArticleCancer medicine2022
Impact of race-specific screening guideline on the uptake of colorectal cancer screening among young African Americans.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between cancer screenings uptake and genetic testing for cancer risk among US adults: findings from HINTS 2017-2020.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Impact of race-specific screening guideline on the uptake of colorectal cancer screening among young African Americans.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAfrican Americans (AAs) have had lower colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, higher incidence rate, and earlier mean age at onset. The 2017 U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) recommended initiating CRC screening at age 45 for AAs and age 50 for non-AAs.
objectiveTo investigate the impact of the 2017 MSTF's race-specific guidelines on CRC screening rate among young AAs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsWe used the 2015 and 2018 National Health Interview Survey to provide nationally representative estimates. The study sample included adults aged between 45 and 75 without a history of CRC, excluding screening recipients for diagnosis or surveillance purposes. MAIN MEASURES: The outcome is a binary variable of CRC screening. Primary independent variables were age and race category (non-AAs aged 45-49, AAs 45-49, non-AAs 50-75, AAs 50-75), a binary variable indicating before or after the 2017 MSTF guideline (2015 vs. 2018), and their interaction terms. We employed a multivariable logistic model, adjusting for individual characteristics, and accounting for complex survey design. KEY
resultsAmong the total sample (n = 21,735), CRC screening rate increased from 54.6% in 2015 to 58.5% in 2018 (p < 0.01). By age and race, the screening rate exhibited an increase for all age and race groups except for young non-AAs. Compared to young non-AAs, the adjusted predicted probability (APP) of screening for young AAs was significantly higher by 0.10 (average marginal effect, 0.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.19) in 2018, while the difference was insignificant in 2015. Racial differences in screening among older adults were not significant in both years. The CRC screening rate was substantially lower among young AAs compared to older AAs (17.2% vs. 65.5% in 2018).
conclusionThe race-specific recommendation is an effective policy tool to increase screening uptake and would contribute to reducing cancer disparities among racial/ethnic minorities.
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.