Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35842109›Full record

Trial reportContemporary clinical trials2022

The COMPASS study: A prospective, randomized, multi-center trial testing the impact of a clinic-based intervention informing patients of colorectal cancer screening options on screening completion.

Joan M Griffin, Lila J Finney Rutten, Xuan Zhu, Ziding Feng, Charles R Rogers, Tracey L Marsh, John M Inadomi

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Contemporary clinical trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05246839 (Informed Choice Intervention for Colorectal Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05246839 terminatednot on this map

Informed Choice Intervention for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Compass

TypeobservationalSponsorExact Sciences CorporationRan2022 to 2025Enrolled1,823ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsBrief Video, Brief Video Plus
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Joan M GriffinMayo Clinic, Division of Health Care Delivery Research, USA; Mayo Clinic, Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, USA. Electronic address: griffin.joan@mayo.edu.
Lila J Finney RuttenMayo Clinic, Division of Epidemiology, USA.
Xuan ZhuMayo Clinic, Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, USA.
Ziding FengFred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Division of Public Health Sciences, Biostatistics Program, USA.
Charles R RogersMedical College of Wisconsin, Institute for Health & Equity, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Tracey L MarshFred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Division of Public Health Sciences, Biostatistics Program, USA.
John M InadomiUniversity of Utah School of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Funding

Developing a Barbershop-Based Trial on Masculinity Barriers to Care and Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake among African-American Men using a MixedMethods ApproachK01CA234319 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI ROGERS, CHARLES R. · 2018 to 2022
$878k
NCI NIH HHS K01 CA234319
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized despite evidence that screening improves survival. Since healthcare provider recommendation is a strong predictor of CRC screening completion, providers are encouraged to engage eligible patients in collaborative decision-making that attends to patients' values, needs, and preferences for guideline-concordant screening modalities.

methodsThis three-arm randomized controlled trial is testing the effectiveness of an evidence-based video intervention informing patients of screening choices delivered in a clinic prior to a healthcare appointment. We hypothesize that participants randomized to watch a basic video describing CRC and screening in addition to an informed choice video showing the advantages and disadvantages of fecal immunochemical test (FIT), stool DNA FIT (s-DNA FIT), and colonoscopy (Arm 3) will exhibit a greater proportion of time adherent to CRC screening guidelines after 1, 3 and 6 years than those who only watch the basic video (Arm 2) or no video at all (Arm 1). Primary care and Obstetrician/Gynecology clinics across the United States are recruiting 5280 patients, half who have never been screened and half who previously screened but are currently not guideline adherent. Participants complete surveys prior to and following an index appointment to self-report personal, cognitive, and environmental factors potentially associated with screening. Proportion of time adherent to screening guidelines will be assessed using medical record data and supplemented with annual surveys self-reporting screening.

conclusionResults will provide evidence on the effectiveness of informational and motivational videos to encourage CRC screening that can be easily integrated into clinical practice. CLINICALTRIALS: gov #NCT05246839.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerColonoscopyHumansMass ScreeningOccult BloodProspective StudiesUnited StatesBehavior change theoryClinical trialColonic neoplasmsColorectal cancer screeningEarly detection of screeningEarly medical intervention

Identifiers

PMID35842109
PMCPMC9634616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.