Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38421651›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2024

Effectiveness of Colonoscopy Screening vs Sigmoidoscopy Screening in Colorectal Cancer.

Frederik E Juul, Amanda J Cross, Robert E Schoen, Carlo Senore, Paul F Pinsky, Eric A Miller, Nereo Segnan, Kate Wooldrage, Paulina Wieszczy-Szczepanik, Paola Armaroli and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Frederik E JuulClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Amanda J CrossCancer Screening & Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Robert E SchoenDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Carlo SenoreUniversity Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Paul F PinskyDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.
Eric A MillerDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland.
Nereo SegnanUniversity Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Kate WooldrageCancer Screening & Prevention Research Group, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Paulina Wieszczy-SzczepanikClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Paola ArmaroliUniversity Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Kjetil K GarborgClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Hans-Olov AdamiClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Geir HoffSection for Colorectal Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Mette KalagerClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Michael BretthauerClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Øyvind HolmeClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Magnus LøbergClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Oslo University Hospital · NOAzienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino · ITImperial College London · GBNational Cancer Institute · USUniversity of Oslo · NOUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Randomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking. Objective: To estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021. Intervention: Invitation to endoscopic screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial. Results: This analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsColonoscopyComparative Effectiveness ResearchComputer SimulationFemaleHumansMaleSigmoidoscopy

Identifiers

PMID38421651
PMCPMC10905314
OpenAlexW4392297088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.