Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40278966›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of epidemiology2025

Effect of colonoscopy screening on risks of colorectal cancer and related death: instrumental variable estimation of per-protocol effects.

Joy Shi, Magnus Løberg, Mette Kalager, Paulina Wieszczy, Nastazja D Pilonis, Hans-Olov Adami, Michal F Kaminski, Michael Bretthauer, Miguel A Hernán, The NordICC Study Group

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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. Article
  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

10 authors.

Joy ShiCAUSALab, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, USA. joyshi@hsph.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4234-7999
Magnus LøbergClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Mette KalagerClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Paulina WieszczyClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Nastazja D PilonisDepartment of Gastroenterological Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland.
Hans-Olov AdamiClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Michal F KaminskiClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Michael Bretthauer *Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Miguel A Hernán *CAUSALab, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, USA.
The NordICC Study Group

Funding

AFA Försäkring 130072Helse Sør-Øst RHF 5135Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Poland 501-1-09-12-12/22Narodowe Centrum Badań i Rozwoju N R13 0024 04Norges Forskningsråd 197309Polish-Norwegian Research Programme Pol-Nor/204233/30/2013Regionala Forskningsrådet Uppsala/Örebro 2368/10-221Swedish Cancer Foundation 2010/345Swedish Cancer Foundation CAN 2013/553The Dutch Ministry of Health and Health Care Prevention (NL) ZonMw 2008ZonMw 120720012
6 · The paper itself

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

ColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMass ScreeningAgedFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedRisk FactorsColonoscopyColorectal cancerInstrumental variablePer-protocolScreening

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.