ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2025
Low Rates of Digital Rectal Exam in an Academic Health System Represent a Missed Opportunity.
Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hemorrhoids and Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of Clinical Overlap, Diagnostic Misclassification, and Early Detection Strategies for Primary Care.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesDigital rectal exam (DRE) is an important screening tool for early cancer identification. DRE has become less routinely performed following removal from cancer screening guidelines. The effect of this decreased utilization has not been studied; this study sought to evaluate current DRE utilization and changes over time.
methodsThe electronic medical record database of a regional academic health system was assessed between 2015 and 2020 for encounters with patients aged 45-75. DRE rates and yearly trends were assessed using chi-squared and Cochran-Armitage tests, respectively.
resultsOf 191 329 outpatient encounters, DRE was documented on 8.5% of visits. DRE utilization declined from 2015 to 2020 (9.6% vs. 8.9%). DRE was more often identified as a procedure in surgical specialties, including surgical oncology (55.6%) and general surgery (2.8%), compared to primary care specialties, including family medicine (1.7%) and internal medicine (1.6%). DREs were less frequently documented for non-Hispanic Black patients versus non-Black patients (7.2% vs. 8.4%) and for Hispanic patients versus Non-Hispanic White patients (7.6% vs. 8.5%). Men had a documented DRE procedure more frequently than women overall (10.4% vs. 4.6%) and in encounters with primary care specialties (2.3% vs. 0.5%) and surgical specialties (20.4% vs. 13.5%) (all p < 0.001).
conclusionsIn this contemporary evaluation, DRE was less frequently coded during outpatient clinic visits overall and specifically in primary care compared with surgical specialties. Differences in DRE utilization across sociodemographic factors highlight disparities in cancer screening. Low DRE rates represent a missed opportunity for early identification of high prevalence cancers.
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.