ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2024
Optimizing tracking and completion of follow-up colonoscopy after abnormal stool tests at health systems participating in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program.
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. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Cost of colorectal cancer screening in two tribal health organizations in Alaska.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe present findings from an assessment of award recipients' partners from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). We describe partners' processes of identifying and tracking patients undergoing stool-based screening.
methodsWe analyzed data from eight CRCCP award recipients purposively sampled and their partner health systems from 2019 to 2023. The data included number of stool-based tests distributed and returned; abnormal findings; referrals and completion of follow-up colonoscopies; and colonoscopy findings. We also report on strategies to improve tracking of stool-based tests and facilitation of follow-up colonoscopies.
resultsFive of eight CRCCP award recipients reported that all or some partner health systems were able to report stool test return rates. Six had health systems that were able to report abnormal stool test findings. Two reported that health systems could track time to follow-up colonoscopy completion from date of referral, while four could report colonoscopy completion but not the timeframe. Follow-up colonoscopy completion varied substantially from 24.2 to 75.5% (average of 47.9%). Strategies to improve identifying and tracking screening focused mainly on the use of electronic medical records; strategies to facilitate follow-up colonoscopy were multi-level.
conclusionHealth systems vary in their ability to track steps in the stool-based screening process and few health systems can track time to completion of follow-up colonoscopy. Longer time intervals can result in more advanced disease. CRCCP-associated health systems participating in this study could support the implementation of multicomponent strategies at the individual, provider, and health system levels to improve tracking and completion of follow-up colonoscopy.
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.