Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39671062›Full record

ReviewDigestive diseases and sciences2025

How Good Is Good Enough? What Should Be the Target for CRC Screening?

David Lieberman, Evelien Dekker

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

David LiebermanProfessor Emeritus, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, L461, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR, 97239, USA. lieberma@ohsu.edu.
Evelien DekkerDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal Cancer (CRC) screening of average-risk individuals has been shown to reduce CRC mortality and incidence. Incidence is reduced by detection and removal of cancer precursor lesions (CPLs), resulting in cancer prevention. Mortality reduction is achieved with detection of curable CRC, as well as prevention by removing CPLs before cancer develops. Targets of screening include both curable CRC and CPLs. Non-invasive stool tests are a multi-step screening program which can detect curable cancers and less likely to detect CPLs than invasive screening. The non-invasive programs depend on completion of colonoscopy if the test is positive. Invasive screening with colonoscopy is a one-step test program, with excellent detection of both curable CRCs and CPLs, if performed with high-quality. Current evidence suggests that either program could be effective, despite different targets. Patient adherence and program quality are perhaps the important determinants of program effectiveness.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMass ScreeningColonoscopyHumansOccult BloodCancer precursor lesions (adenomas and sessile serrated lesions)ColonoscopyColorectal cancerColorectal cancer preventionColorectal cancer screening

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.