ArticleBMC cancer2022
Validation of the Asia-Pacific colorectal screening score and its modified versions in predicting colorectal advanced neoplasia in Chinese population.
Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can the Parallel or Tandem Combination of Questionnaire-Based Risk Assessment and Fecal Immunochemical Test Improve the Efficiency of Colorectal Cancer Screening?International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- FACE-POLYP: development and validation of a multicentre risk stratification model for colorectal polyps incorporating perioral hyperpigmented nevi.Science China. Life sciences · 2026Article
- Modified predictive model incorporating the waist-to-hip ratio for advanced colorectal neoplasia: A step toward precision screening.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Colorectal cancer early screening: Dilemmas and solutions.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening using Immunochemical Faecal Occult Blood Testing (iFOBT) in Urban-Poor Communities in Cheras, Malaysia: A Cross-Sectional Study.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2025Article
- Development of a risk score for colorectal cancer screening.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2025Article
- Incorporating Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Novel Model for Predicting Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia.HelicobacterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world. Several studies suggest using the Asia-Pacific colorectal screening (APCS) score and its modified versions to select high-risk populations for early colonoscopy, but external validation remains rare, and which score should be selected for CRC screening in China is unclear. Validation of multiple scores in the same population might help to choose the best performing score.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study under the framework of Cancer Screening Program in Urban China, data from asymptomatic colorectal cancer screening in Xuzhou was used to validate the APCS score, the colorectal neoplasia predict (CNP) score, the Korean colorectal screening (KCS) score, the Modified APCS score and the 8-point risk score in predicting colorectal advanced neoplasia (CAN).
results1804 subjects were included in the analysis and 112 CAN (6.21%) was detected. In each score, the detection rate of CAN was higher in the high-risk group than in the non-high-risk group (P < 0.05), and the RR (95%C.I.) ranged 2.20 (1.50-3.22) [8-point risk] to 4.00 (2.41-6.65) [Modified APCS]. The c-statistics (95%C.I.) of the scoring systems ranged from 0.58 (0.53-0.62) [8-point risk] to 0.65 (0.61-0.69) [KCS]. The sensitivity (95%C.I.) of these systems ranged from 31.25 (22.83-40.70) [8-point risk] to 84.82 (76.81-90.90) [Modified APCS], while the specificity (95%C.I.) ranged from 43.50 (41.12-45.90) [Modified APCS] to 83.81 (81.96-85.53) [8-point risk]. Using the APCS scoring system as a comparator, the net reclassification improvement (NRI) of each modified version ranged from - 10.34% (95%C.I.: - 22.63 to 1.95%) [8-point risk] to 4.79% (95%C.I.: - 1.50% to 11.08) [KCS]. The colonoscopy resource load (95%C.I.) ranged from 9 [1-3] [8-point risk] to 11 [3-5] [APCS and Modified APCS].
conclusionsThe APCS score and its modified versions have certain ability to predict the risk of advanced neoplasia and reduce the resource load. The modified APCS score and the KCS score seemed the preferable systems to classify high risk subjects based on its high RR, sensitivity and predictive ability in the selected population. Future research could focus on adding risk factors or combining with laboratory test results to improve the predictive power of the scoring system.
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.