Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35656227›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2022

Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) versus colonoscopy: Does knowing that a positive FIT requires a follow-up colonoscopy affect initial decision making in the US?

Jaspreet Shergill, Katherine E Makaroff, Marie Lauzon, Brennan M R Spiegel, Christopher V Almario

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jaspreet ShergillDepartment of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Katherine E MakaroffCedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Marie LauzonBiostatistics and Bioinformatics Research Center, Cedars-Sinai Cancer, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Brennan M R SpiegelDepartment of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Christopher V AlmarioDepartment of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

Automated Colorectal Cancer Educational Support System (ACCESS): Development and Validation of a Novel Online Decision Aid for Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening UptakeK08CA245033 · NCI · CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER · PI ALMARIO, CHRISTOPHER V · 2020 to 2024
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS K08 CA245033NCI NIH HHS L30 CA265419
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although many people prefer fecal immunochemical test (FIT) over colonoscopy due to its noninvasive nature, it is unclear whether FIT would still be preferred for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening if they were explicitly informed that + FIT requires follow-up colonoscopy. To address this gap, we administered two conjoint analysis surveys-one that explained the need for a follow-up colonoscopy after + FIT while the other did not-to a US nationwide sample of Americans and then assessed whether there were differences in colonoscopy/FIT preferences between cohorts. We recruited adults ≥ 40yo who had not undergone CRC screening via an online survey research firm. We deployed two surveys that used conjoint analysis to assess decision making surrounding CRC screening tests: Survey 1 (4/2-4/15/2021)-did not inform participants that they need a colonoscopy following a + FIT; Survey 2 (4/29-6/2/2021)-informed respondents of the potential need. Using the conjoint analysis data, we determined the proportion of those who preferred FIT or colonoscopy and then used logistic regression to assess for differences in colonoscopy/FIT preferences between the cohorts. Overall, 501 and 1,000 individuals completed Survey 1 (without description of need for colonoscopy after + FIT) and Survey 2 (with description), respectively. There was no difference in test preference between cohorts after adjusting for covariates in the logistic regression (adjusted p = 0.09): Survey 1 (without description)-colonoscopy 28.5%, FIT 71.5%; Survey 2 (with description)-colonoscopy 26.7%, FIT 73.3%. Thus, knowledge that a + FIT requires a follow-up colonoscopy does not alter people's strong preference for non-invasive stool testing with FIT.

Identifiers

PMID35656227
PMCPMC9152796
OpenAlexW4280504721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.