ArticleFamily practice2023
Validation of a diagnostic prediction tool for colorectal cancer: a case-control replication study.
Article in Family practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cancer risk in patients with recurrent or persistent symptoms: a systematic review.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Review
- The performance of FIT-based and other risk prediction models for colorectal neoplasia in symptomatic patients: a systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is crucial for survival. Primary care, the first point of contact in most cases, needs supportive risk assessment tools. We aimed to replicate the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (SCCRAT) for non-metastatic CRC in primary care and examine if risk factor patterns depend on sex and age.
methods2,920 adults diagnosed with non-metastatic CRC during the years 2015-2019 after having visited a general practitioner the year before the diagnosis were selected from the Swedish Cancer Register and matched with 11,628 controls, using the same inclusion criteria except for the CRC diagnosis. Diagnostic codes from primary care consultations were collected from a regional health care database. Positive predictive values (PPVs) were estimated for the same 5 symptoms and combinations thereof as in the baseline study.
resultsThe results for patients aged ≥50 years old in the present study were consistent with the results of the SCCRAT study. All symptoms and combinations thereof with a PPV >5% in the present study had a PPV >5% in the baseline study. The combination of bleeding with abdominal pain (PPV 9.9%) and bleeding with change in bowel habit (PPV 7.8%) were the highest observed PPVs in both studies. Similar risk patterns were seen for all ages and when men and women were studied separately.
conclusionThis external validation of the SCCRAT for non-metastatic CRC in primary care replicated the baseline study successfully and identified patients at high risk for CRC.
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.