Trial reportBMJ open quality2023
Quality improvement intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening at the primary care setting: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open quality, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04293315 (Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Collaborative Strategy to Increase the Screening of Colorectal Cancer in the Public Healthcare Sector in Argentina), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Collaborative Strategy to Increase the Screening of Colorectal Cancer in the Public Healthcare Sector in Argentina
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shaping the future of early-onset colorectal cancer prevention.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2026Review
- Strategies to overcome barriers in access to cancer treatment in Latin America: a regional perspective.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Review
- Validation of a Digital Platform for Colorectal Cancer Risk Stratification and Personalized Screening Recommendations.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Emerging trends in the global burden of colorectal cancer.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Interrupted Time Series Analysis for Quality Improvement Projects.PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.) · 2026Article
- Advances in colorectal cancer screening and detection: a narrative review on biomarkers, imaging and preventive strategies.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2025Review
- Adapting power calculations to include a superiority margin: what are the implications?Biochemia medica · 2024Review
- Effective General Practice-Led Interventions to Increase Uptake in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review.Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApproximately 81% of deaths in Argentina are from chronic non-communicable diseases and 21% caused by cancer. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most frequent cancer in Argentina. Even though CRC screening has been recommended for adults from 50 to 75 years old by using a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) annually, screening rates remain below 20% in the country.
methodsWe conducted an 18-month, two-arm, pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial evaluating the effect of a quality improvement intervention, based on the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, considering barriers and catalysts to articulate theory and practice, to increase CRC screening rates using FITs at primary care level. The study involved ten public primary health centres in Mendoza province, Argentina. The primary outcome measure was the rate of effective CRC screening. Secondary outcomes were the rate of participants with a positive FIT, tests with invalid results and the rate of participants referred for colonoscopy.
resultsScreening was effective in 75% of the participants in the intervention arm vs 54.2% in the control arm, OR 2.5 (95% CI 1.4 to 4.4, p=0.001). These results remained unchanged after adjusting for individual demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Regarding secondary outcomes, the overall prevalence of positive tests was 17.7% (21.1% in the control arm and 14.7% in the intervention arm, p=0.3648). The overall proportion of participants with inadequate test results was 5.2% (4.9% in the control arm vs 5.5% in the intervention arm, p=0.8516). All the participants with positive tests were referred for colonoscopy in both groups.
conclusionsAn intervention based on quality improvement strategies proved to be highly successful in increasing effective CRC screening in Argentina's primary care setting within the public healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04293315.
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.