ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2024
Evaluation of the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening intervention.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe effectiveness of the Colorectal Cancer (CRC) screening program is assessed based on the reduction in CRC mortality and incidence rates over time. To accurately estimate the long-term impact, it is advisable to monitor additional indicators such as age and stage-specific incidence rates. Our objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of the National CRC Screening Program in Turkey and analyze its influence on disease stage at diagnosis and survival rates.
methodsThe National CRC Screening Program was considered an intervention and the distribution of local, regional, and distant diseases, and survival estimates were assessed before and after the intervention to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention.
results518 patients were included in the study. At the time of diagnosis, localized, regional, and distant disease in pre-intervention were 31.3%, 42.9%, 25.8%, while post-intervention were 42.8%, 33.3%, 23.9%, respectively (p = 0.020). The relative effectiveness of the intervention in males, females, and 50-70 ages were calculated as 1.2[95% CI 0.95-1.73], 1.5[95% CI 1.04-2.18], and 1.6[95% CI 1.21-2.28] in localized disease, 0.8[95% CI 0.67-1.18], 0.6[95% CI 0.43-0.90], and 0.6[95% CI 0.46-0.81] in regional diseases, 0.8[95% CI 0.57-1.20], 1.1[95% CI 0.66-1.84], and 1.0[95% CI 0.70-1.57] in distant disease, respectively.
conclusionA noticeable shift in the disease stage at the time of diagnosis was observed; however, this shift varied among gender and age groups. To effectively evaluate the impact of a cancer screening program on reducing the incidence and mortality rates of the disease, it is essential to monitor and analyze these indicators alongside 5-10-year survival estimates and stage changes at the time of diagnosis.
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.