Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39641898›Full record

ReviewDigestive diseases and sciences2025

Does Colonoscopy as a First Screening Test Still Make Sense?-Counterpoint.

Mark Pi-Chun Chuang, Han-Mo Chiu

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Mark Pi-Chun ChuangDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7, Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei, Taiwan.
Han-Mo ChiuDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7, Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei, Taiwan. hanmochiu@ntu.edu.tw.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colonoscopy has been widely regarded as the gold standard for its high diagnostic accuracy and preventive potential. However, its invasive nature, high cost, and suboptimal participation rates limit its utility at the population level. Non-invasive screening tests, notably the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and multitarget stool DNA tests, present promising alternatives that may improve screening participation and reduce barriers to participation. Among these, FIT has demonstrated a consistent advantage in enhancing participation, which subsequently contributes to better long-term outcomes in CRC prevention. FIT-based two-step screening offers several practical advantages, including cost-effectiveness, non-invasiveness, and greater flexibility. Moreover, the quantitative nature of FIT allows for adjustable sensitivity thresholds and the ability of risk stratification, making it adaptable across diverse populations and scenarios. Through serial testing, FIT can increase cumulative detection rates over time. This approach facilitates the identification of high-risk individuals, allowing for more judicious use of colonoscopy resources and reducing unnecessary invasive procedures, especially among low-risk populations. Notably, evidence indicates that participation to FIT-based screening is consistently higher than to colonoscopy, which enhances the detection of early-stage cancers and advanced adenomas in the long run. Given the constraints of limited endoscopic capacity, the aging population, and the recent lowering of the recommended screening age due to the rising incidence of early-onset CRC, FIT emerges as a practical, flexible solution. The role of two-step FIT screening in improving participation and enabling risk-stratified, personalized approaches to CRC prevention is pivotal, advocating for its expanded integration into future screening paradigms.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMass ScreeningFecesHumansOccult BloodColonoscopyColorectal cancerFecal immunochemical testScreening

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.