ArticleWomen's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)2023
Colorectal Cancer Screening Knowledge and Practices Among Practicing Obstetrician-Gynecologists and Residents.
Article in Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.), 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.
- Adherence to Obstetrician-/Gynecologist-Ordered Multi-target Stool DNA Test Screening and Follow-Up Colonoscopy: A National Multi-payer Study of US Women.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Trainee Awareness of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the US, the third most diagnosed cancer in women, and the second leading cause of cancer death in women. The aims of our study are to (1) investigate knowledge of and adherence to CRC screening guidelines by obstetrician-gynecologists (Ob/Gyns) and (2) assess whether this knowledge/adherence vary by demographic and practice characteristics. Methods: An anonymous cross-sectional survey was distributed to a convenience sample of 142 practicing Obs/Gyns drawn from National Medical Association section members/conference attendees and hospital Ob/Gyn department members. Results: Most respondents (80.3%) viewed colorectal screening within the scope of Ob/Gyn practice, and 71.8% used the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines for screening. Most respondents were knowledgeable regarding CRC screening but not in all areas. On average they only identified half of the 10 risk factors listed and only one-quarter correctly identified the age when screening can stop. Residents were somewhat more knowledgeable about screening guidelines and risk factors than attendings. More than half of respondents (57.8%) reported always initiating CRC screening for the appropriate age and risk factors. Respondents identified education and awareness (56.3%) and patients' unwillingness to undergo an invasive procedure (75.4%) as barriers to screening. Conclusions: Knowledge regarding CRC screening was less than optimal and differed by attending/resident status. Greater emphasis should be placed on CRC screening and guidelines training for primary care providers like Ob/Gyns. Some of this could be accomplished through maintenance of certification and continued integration into residency education.
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.