ArticleCentral European journal of public health2023
Colorectal cancer screening: understanding the needs of the pre-screening group.
Article in Central 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 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesFor the last three decades, although colorectal cancer incidence has been decreasing in those over 50 years of age, it has been increasing in those under 50 included in the pre-screening group (PSG). The present study aims to explain the screening-related factors and compliance of individuals in PSG who are not included in the colorectal cancer screening programme.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted with a total of 323 participants, 143 of whom were from the pre-screening group (40-49 years), and 180 from the screening included group (SIG) (50-70 years).
resultsIndividuals included in PSG were more likely to have accepted that both faecal occult blood test (FOBT) (2.23 ± 1.22 vs. 1.89 ± 1.33, p = 0.018) and colonoscopy (2.37 ± 0.97 vs. 2.02 ± 1.14, p = 0.003) were useful and suitable screening tests in colorectal cancer. Adequate health literacy (OR = 4.3, 95% CI: 1.8-10.0, p = 0.001) and better education level (OR = 3.3, 95% CI: 1.3-8.4, p = 0.010) were factors of increased knowledge of colorectal cancer screening.
conclusionsThe findings show that PSG has different characteristics than SIG and may be more fitting in the colorectal cancer screening programme if included.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36976250What 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.