Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40099138›Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2025

Longitudinal retrospective study of real-world adherence to colorectal cancer screening before and after the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA.

Harsh Gupta, Robyn Ann Husa, Staci J Wendt, Ann Vita, Claire Boone, Jessica B Weiss, Anton J Bilchik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Harsh GuptaDepartment of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Robyn Ann HusaHealth Research Accelerator, Providence Health and Services, Renton, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8937-8752
Staci J WendtHealth Research Accelerator, Providence Health and Services, Renton, Washington, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-9090-4192
Ann VitaHealth Research Accelerator, Providence Health and Services, Renton, Washington, USA.
Claire BooneDepartment of Economics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Jessica B WeissProvidence Saint John's Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, USA.
Anton J BilchikProvidence Saint John's Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: At-home stool tests are an increasingly popular practice for colorectal cancer screening, especially when access to healthcare facilities is challenging. However, there is limited information about whether stool tests provide sufficient coverage when patients must undergo repeat testing. This study evaluates repeat preventative stool tests over 2 year periods in a healthcare system with 51 hospitals and over 1000 clinics across seven western US states, before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We conduct a real-world, observational, retrospective and longitudinal study based on electronic medical records. We measure the rate of repeat screening and mean delay in repeat screening among patients who receive an initial stool test. We estimate the changes in the likelihood of colorectal cancer screening using a Cox proportional hazard model. Results: Our sample included 4 03 085 patients. The share of patients with an initial negative stool test who received a repeat screening ranged from 38% to 49% across different years. Among patients who received a repeat screening, there is a delay of 3 months on average. The volume of stool tests increased during the pandemic: the HR of screening after the onset of the pandemic to that before the pandemic was 1.18 (95% CI (1.15, 1.20), p<0.001). Conclusions: Our findings show that less than 50% of patients received a repeat stool test, creating gaps in their screening coverage. The increase in stool tests during the pandemic is partly due to a substitution away from colonoscopies, underscoring the increasing importance of stool tests in CRC screening. Programmes that aim to increase CRC screening uptake should focus on repeated testing after an initial screening.

Indexed as

Community HealthCOVID-19Preventive MedicinePublic Health

Identifiers

PMID40099138
PMCPMC11911680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.