ArticlePloS one2025
Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer screening in two university-affiliated health care systems.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Colorectal cancer incidence in Saudi Arabia, 2002-2023: Age-specific trends and implications for screening and prevention.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- The Lingering Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Screening Modalities and Staging by Neighborhood-Level Deprivation.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Prevalence of Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Latino Adults Following the Medicaid Eligibility Amendment Expansion.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Global Burden of Colorectal Cancer in Adolescents and Young Adults From 1990 to 2021: A Systematic Analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Colorectal Cancer Surgical Pathology: Comparative Study in Lebanon Before and After the Economic Collapse.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn two large university affiliated healthcare systems, we examined trends in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening both prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic to compare the trends in non-invasive screening tests and colonoscopy. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective time-trend analysis, we obtained the numbers of colonoscopies and non-invasive tests performed monthly during the pandemic and the year prior to it. We obtained colonoscopy data from five endoscopy units with the indication determined by dual independent review. Monthly numbers of completed fecal immunochemical (FIT) and FIT-DNA tests were obtained from the electronic medical records of both health systems. Trends in testing, numbers, and stage of incident CRCs diagnosed during the 30-month interval were examined using Poisson regression and logistic regression, respectively.
resultsFrom January 2019 to June 2021, we identified 16,939 FIT tests, 2,942 FIT-DNA tests, and 38,332 colonoscopies from the two health systems, and 368 colorectal cancers (105 early stage, 263 advanced stage) from the private hospital system. Overall colonoscopy volume declined by 18.7% (from 16,483 to 13,393) in 2020 compared to 2019 in both health systems, returning to baseline in 2021. Non-invasive tests declined by 21.9% in 2020, but increased in 2021 due to greater use of FIT/DNA. Compared to 2019, incident CRCs declined in 2020 but rebounded in 2021, with no difference in early versus late-stage cancers.
conclusionsThese trends in CRC screening tests may be useful for modeling the effects of the pandemic on the longer-term outcomes of CRC incidence and mortality.
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.