ArticleScientific reports2025
The revised colorectal cancer screening guideline and screening burden at community health centers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of Maintenance Therapy Strategies with Survival Following First-Line Bevacizumab-Based Combination Chemotherapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Leveraging Text Messaging and Behavior Theory to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers: Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Colorectal Cancer Test Completion among Adults Aged 45 to 75 in an Integrated Healthcare System: A Retrospective Analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- Hologenomic analysis of rectal mucus sampling for detection of adenomatous polyps and colorectal cancer.Nature communications · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer among men and women combined, and the second leading cause of cancer death in the US. The revised USPSTF CRC screening recommendations increased CRC screening needs across health systems, which may create particular challenges for community health centers (CHCs) given their resource constraints. The objective of our study is to assess CRC screening rates across 10 CHCs in Massachusetts and estimate the additional increase in the number of average-risk screening-eligible individuals after the revision in guidelines. CRC screening was defined as being up to date vs. not up to date based on any of the approved screening modalities in the appropriate time frame. Our outcome of interest was CRC screening by age group and the percentage increase in screenings needed to screen individuals 45 to 49 across our partner CHCs after the revision in guidelines. Our analysis included 70,808 individuals aged 45 to 75. The overall CRC screening rate was 35.9% after the USPSTF guideline revision. Screening rates were lowest in those aged 45 to 49 at 9.6%, and highest in those over age 55 at 47.0%. There was a 22.9% increase in additional screenings needed after USPSTF guideline revision. The revised USPSTF guidelines increased screening needs by about 23% without additional funding for CHCs for which demand already outstrips staffing and clinical care resources. Future studies should include cost analyses of screening the population 45 to 49 and identify effective strategies that are low burden and do not add to the workload of CHC providers to improve screening at CHCs.
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.