ArticleEuropean journal of public health2023
Sex variation in colorectal cancer mortality: trends and implications for screening.
Article in European journal of public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Benefits of colorectal cancer screening using fecal immunochemical testing with varying positivity thresholds by age and sex.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Pooled it
- Sex- and Age-Stratified Outcomes of Colonoscopy Versus Faecal Immunochemical Testing: Post-Analysis of the COLONPREV Study.United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Trial
- Exploring Risk Factors and Sex Differences in Colorectal Cancer: Insights from Current Evidence.Cells · 2026Review
- Organised Colorectal Cancer Screening and Changes in Mortality and Incidence Trends: A Population-Based Study.Cancers · 2026Article
- Article
- Thyroid transcription factor-1 expression in lung neuroendocrine tumours: a gender-related biomarker?Endocrine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening using faecal tests reduces disease-specific mortality. To investigate mortality and its association with sex, rates in women and men, and in different age ranges, were examined, before and after screening began in Scotland.
methodsFrom 1990-99, no structured screening existed. Three pilots ran from 2000 to 2007 and subsequent full roll-out completed in 2009. Crude mortality rates for 1990-2020 were calculated relative to Scottish population estimates, and age-sex standardized rates calculated for all, pre-screening (<50 years), screening (5-74 years) and post-screening (>74 years) age ranges.
resultsCRC mortality declined from 1990 to 2020, but not linearly, and differed between sexes. In women, 1990-99 showed a steady decline [average annual percentage change (AAPC): -2.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.8% to -1.4%], but a less marked decline after 2000 (AAPC: -0.7%, 95% CI: -0.9% to -0.4%). In men, no clear decline was seen from 1990 to 1999 (AAPC: -0.4%, 95% CI: -1.1% to 0.4%), but mortality declined from 2000 to 2020 (AAPC: -1.7%, 95% CI: -1.9% to -1.5%). This pattern was exaggerated in the screening age ranges. For 2000-20, the overall reduction in mortality was less in women and in the screening age range. In the post-screening age range, reductions were smaller, but an increase was seen in the pre-screening age range, greater in women.
conclusionsCRC mortality fell during 1990-2020, but the decline differed markedly between sexes, indicating a larger beneficial effect of screening on CRC mortality in men compared to women: use of different thresholds for the sexes might lead to equality.
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.