Trial reportEuropean journal of epidemiology2025
Effect of colonoscopy screening on risks of colorectal cancer and related death: instrumental variable estimation of per-protocol effects.
Trial report in European journal of epidemiology, 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.
- Interpretable Machine Learning Models Based on Blood Cell-Derived Inflammatory Indices for Identifying Colorectal Neoplasia: A Retrospective Study.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Article
- No "prevalence bias" in randomized controlled trials on colorectal cancer screening: the importance of clarifying the research question.European journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Choosing a sensible contrast makes "prevalence bias" irrelevant in screening colonoscopy trials.European journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Looking at randomized trials with the critical eyes of epidemiologists: the case of screening colonoscopy.European journal of epidemiology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe recently reported per-protocol estimates of colonoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in NordICC, a large-scale randomized trial. Our results may be affected by residual confounding due to lack of detailed information on confounders. Here, we supplement our per-protocol analyses with instrumental variable (IV) estimates whose validity relies on an alternate set of assumptions but does not depend on the availability of confounder data. Individuals in the NordICC trial were randomized at a 1:2 ratio to receive either an invitation to a one-time screening colonoscopy (the invited group) or no invitation (the usual-care group). We used IV analyses to estimate bounds and point estimates of per-protocol effects of colonoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after 10 years follow-up. Analyses included 28,220 participants in the invited group and 56,365 participants in the usual-care group. Participation in screening was 42%. In IV per-protocol analyses, the 10-year risk of colorectal cancer was 1.13% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04, 1.23) with usual care and, depending on the assumptions, 0.66% (95% CI: 035, 0.95) to 0.74% (95% CI: 0.57, 0.95) in screened individuals (risk ratio of 0.59 [95% CI: 0.30, 0.98] to 0.65 [95% CI: 0.48, 0.87]). The risk of colorectal cancer mortality at 10 years was 0.29% (95% CI: 0.24, 0.33) in the usual-care group and 0.20 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.73) to 0.22% (95% CI: 0.08, 0.37) in the screened group (risk ratio of 0.71 [95% CI: 0.31, 2.89] to 0.79 [95% CI: 0.24, 1.42]). IV estimation of per-protocol effects suggests that colonoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence by 35 to 41% after 10 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40278966What 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.