ArticleJournal of medical screening2024
The recalibration and redevelopment of a model to calculate patients' probability of completing a colonoscopy following an abnormal fecal test.
Article in Journal of medical screening, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Patient Navigation to Improve Colonoscopy Completion After an Abnormal Stool Test Result : A Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of internal medicine · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesFecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is an effective screening tool for colorectal cancer. If an FIT is abnormal, a follow-up colonoscopy is necessary to remove polyps or find cancers. We sought to develop a usable risk prediction model to identify patients unlikely to complete a colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT test.
methodsWe recalibrated and then redeveloped a prediction model in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), using a retrospective cohort of patients aged 50-75 with an abnormal FIT test and clinical data. Logistic and Cox regressions were used to recalibrate and then redevelop the model.
resultsThe initial risk model used data from eight FQHCs (26 clinics) including 1723 patients. When we applied the model to a single large FQHC (34 clinics, 884 eligible patients), the model did not recalibrate successfully (c-statistic dropped more than 0.05, from 0.66 to 0.61). The model was redeveloped in the same FQHC in a cohort of 1401 patients with a c-statistic of 0.65.
conclusionsThe original model developed in a group of FQHCs did not adequately recalibrate in the single large FQHC. Health system, patient characteristics or data differences may have led to the inability to recalibrate the model. However, the redeveloped model provides an adequate model for the single FQHC.
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.