Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35749423›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Modelling optimal use of temporarily restricted colonoscopy capacity in a FIT-based CRC screening program: Application during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lucie de Jonge, Hilliene J van de Schootbrugge-Vandermeer, Emilie C H Breekveldt, Manon C W Spaander, Hanneke J van Vuuren, Folkert J van Kemenade, Evelien Dekker, Iris D Nagtegaal, Monique E van Leerdam, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 47% 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 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Lucie de JongeDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5718-1058
Hilliene J van de Schootbrugge-VandermeerDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Emilie C H BreekveldtDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2503-7323
Manon C W SpaanderDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hanneke J van VuurenDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Folkert J van KemenadeDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4225-4354
Evelien DekkerDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Iris D NagtegaalDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Monique E van LeerdamDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Iris Lansdorp-VogelaarDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic forced colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs to downscale their colonoscopy capacity. In this study, we assessed strategies to deal with temporary restricted colonoscopy capacity in a FIT-based CRC screening program while aiming to retain the maximum possible preventive effect of the screening program.

designWe simulated the Dutch national CRC screening program inviting individuals between ages 55 and 75 for biennial FIT using the MISCAN-Colon model including the 3-month disruption in the first half of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the second half of 2020 and 2021, we simulated three different strategies for the total target population: 1) increasing the FIT cut-off, 2) skipping one screening for specific screening ages, and 3) extending the screening interval. We estimated the impact on required colonoscopy capacity in 2020-2021 and life years (LYs) lost in the long-term.

resultsIncreasing the FIT cut-off, skipping screening ages and extending the screening interval resulted in a maximum reduction of 25,100 (-17.0%), 16,100(-10.9%) and 19,000 (-12.9%) colonoscopies, respectively. Modelling an increased FIT cut-off, the number of LYs lost ranged between 1,400 and 4,400. Skipping just a single screening age resulted in approximately 2,700 LYs lost and this was doubled in case of skipping two screening ages. Extending the screening interval up to 34 months had the smallest impact on LYs lost (up to 1,100 LYs lost).

conclusionThis modelling study shows that to anticipate on restricted colonoscopy capacity, temporarily extending the screening interval retains the maximum possible preventive effect of the CRC screening program.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsCOVID-19AgedChild, PreschoolColonoscopyEarly Detection of CancerHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOccult BloodPandemics

Identifiers

PMID35749423
PMCPMC9231802
OpenAlexW4283445888

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.