ArticleFuture healthcare journal2024
Implementation of home 'finger-prick' carcino-embryonic antigen testing for colorectal cancer follow-up - A pilot study of user acceptability.
Article in Future healthcare journal, 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, 1 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Routine carcino-embryonic antigen blood testing is required after colorectal cancer resection, requiring face-to-face appointments. This has workforce implications, and impacts patients' lives. We assessed feasibility and acceptability of self-taken blood tests. Methods: 50 colorectal cancer patients with experience of face-to-face phlebotomy surveillance agreed to self-testing finger-prick kits. Follow-up questionnaires assessed perspectives and preferences. Results: 68% (50/74) of patients agreed to participate. 76% (38/50) successfully completed samples. 62% (29/47) felt it was no worse than their previous experience. Regarding future testing, 47% (22/47) preferred finger-prick testing. 19% (9/47) expressed no preference. This was unaffected by patient age. Qualitative assessment showed difficulties with pain, discomfort, and sample collection, but was more convenient and saved time for patients. Conclusions: Many preferred finger-prick assessment, but some found it challenging, unnecessary or less preferable. This may reduce burden of follow-up blood tests but currently would only be acceptable to a limited patient cohort.
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.