ReviewGastro hep advances2024
Reporting Quality of Endoscopic Colorectal Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trials: Adherence to Recommendations and Interventions.
Review in Gastro hep advances, 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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: In 2013, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) steering group published recommendations to standardize reporting quality in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aim to assess adherence to SPIRIT reporting guidelines in RCTs on endoscopic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and participants' adherence to trial protocols. Methods: We searched databases for RCTs evaluating flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy for CRC screening published in English language through September 2023. Each eligible study was evaluated using the 8 core SPIRIT statement areas, totaling 51 points. Each item received 1 point if it met the criteria and 0 points if it did not. Adherence to SPIRIT items was calculated, and participant adherence to RCT protocols was assessed as the proportion of participants screened compared to those invited. Results: Five RCTs, including 4 on flexible sigmoidoscopy and 1 on colonoscopy, were analyzed. Adherence to SPIRIT guidance ranged from 82.4% to 92.2%. The most missed recommendation was item 2b (trial registrations), scored 0 across all studies. Additionally, item 32 (informed consent materials) scored 20%, and items 17a & b (blinding) scored 40% each. In total, 587,572 participants were randomized across the 5 RCTs. Of these, 37% (200,610) underwent CRC screening, with 69.8% (139,983/200,610) adhering to the protocol. The Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial, employing a unique invitation method, had a lower adherence rate of 42%. Excluding this trial would raise the adherence rate to 74.3% (128,050/172,390). Conclusion: The published CRC screening trials have acceptable adherence to the SPIRIT reporting guidelines. However, reporting appended consent form materials and disclosing all WHO trial registration data can be improved.
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.