Trial reportJAMA network open2024
Effectiveness of Colonoscopy Screening vs Sigmoidoscopy Screening in Colorectal Cancer.
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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- A meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of 2 L versus 3 L polyethylene glycol in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing versus usual care in diagnostic colorectal cancer screening: the SCREESCO randomized controlled trial.Nature medicine · 2026Trial
- Bayesian model prediction of colorectal cancer incidence in Jiangsu Province, China, a cancer registry-based study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Potential of Exosomes in Colorectal Cancer: Current Advances and Future Perspectives.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Development and validation of a novel blood-based biomarker for gastric cancer triage in chronic dyspepsia.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Transrectal biplane ultrasound-guided transperineal biopsy for rectal and peri-rectal lesions: an 18-year retrospective analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Research advances in early screening for colorectal cancer (Review).Molecular and clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Epidemiological Overview of Colorectal Cancer in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Colorectal cancer unmasked: A synergistic AI framework for Hyper-granular image dissection, precision segmentation, and automated diagnosis.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Predictors of Colon Cancer Screening Among the Saudi Population at Primary Healthcare Settings in Riyadh.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Colorectal cancer detection with enhanced precision using a hybrid supervised and unsupervised learning approach.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Global burden and projection of colorectal cancer attributable to low whole-grain diets: an analysis of GBD 2021 data with Bayesian age-period-cohort modeling.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Colonoscopy is not mammography: Challenges of applying the Duty of Candor.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Screening for Colorectal Carcinoma in India: Real-World Scenario, Pitfalls, and Solutions.South Asian journal of cancer · 2024Article
- Review
- Setting Up an Ambulatory GI Endoscopy Suite in the USA-Anesthesia and Sedation Challenges.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Unveiling Colorectal Cancer Biomarkers: Harnessing Biosensor Technology for Volatile Organic Compound Detection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Canadian considerations on updating the age of initiation for colorectal cancer screening in individuals at average risk.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieReview
- Colonoscopy Screening Behavior in First-Degree Relatives of Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Qualitative Study Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.