ArticlePreventive medicine reports2022
Urban density differences in colorectal cancer screening participation and screening yield in The Netherlands.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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 · 2026Pooled it
- Effective strategies for Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FIT) programs to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake among populations with limited access to the healthcare system: a rapid review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- Development and Validation of a Traditional Chinese Medicine Constitution-Based Risk Score for Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in Asymptomatic Chinese Adults.Cancer management and research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lower socioeconomic status has been associated with higher colorectal cancer incidence and lower participation in population-based screening with faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) but regional variations in participation may also exist. We analysed differences in participation and yield in colorectal cancer screening by urban density level. Data of all invitees to the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme in 2014-2015 were included. Primary outcomes were participation (returning FIT), FIT positive predictive value, and screening yield (advanced neoplasia detected in invitees). Differences were explored across five levels of urban density. In total 1,873,639 screening invitees were included. FIT participation was 77.3% in the lowest versus 62.8% in the highest urban areas (RR 1.23; 95%CI 1.23-1.24). FIT positive predictive value was 58.6% in the lowest versus 55.2% in the highest urban areas (RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.04-1.09). Screening yield was also higher in the lowest (2.1%-2.3%) compared to the highest urban areas (1.8%). Compared to socioeconomic status, differences in urban density were associated with larger differences in screening participation. In conclusion, participation is lower and fewer cases of advanced neoplasia are detected in areas with a high urban density in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme. Differences in urban density could be used in tailoring regional strategies to target barriers in colorectal cancer screening.
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.