Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36193658›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2022

One Barrier to Colorectal Cancer Screening Eliminated: On to the Next.

Richard C Wender, Katharine A Rendle

Abstract readEditorialComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 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
–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.

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.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Richard C WenderProfessor and Chair, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Executive Director, Center for Public Health Initiatives, Senior Fellow, Leonard David Institute, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0002-3719-625X
Katharine A RendleAssistant Professor, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Deputy Director, Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0002-7761-8728

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer screening is one of the best proven and most cost-effective of all preventive interventions. Screening lowers both incidence and mortality. Bearing some of the costs of colonoscopy, also known as cost-sharing, has been a barrier to completion of colonoscopy, both as a primary screen and as a second test to complete screening after an abnormal initial stool or radiologic screening test. While a newly published model concludes that eliminating cost-sharing for colonoscopy after an initial screen is cost-effective, the desired outcome has already been achieved. The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services has announced the plan to eliminate this final out of pocket expense starting in 2023. While this is an important step, many barriers to screening for colorectal cancer and all other cancers remain. Eliminating downstream costs that result from an abnormal screen is a difficult to achieve but important goal. See related article by Fendrick et al., p. 653.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerAgedColonoscopyCost-Benefit AnalysisDeductibles and CoinsuranceFollow-Up StudiesHumansMass ScreeningMedicareUnited States

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.