SynthesisSocial science & medicine (1982)2025
Area-level socioeconomic status is associated with colorectal cancer screening, incidence and mortality in the US: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Social science & medicine (1982), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Global, regional, national burden of colorectal cancer from 1990 to 2021, with projections of incidence to 2050: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 2021.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Factors associated with participation in colorectal and breast cancer screening among cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Review
- A Prospective Case-Control Study of Helicobacter pylori and Systemic Inflammation in Colorectal Cancer Pathogenesis.Cureus · 2026Article
- Estimating the global macroeconomic impact of colorectal cancer: evidence from Global Burden of Disease 2021 and Value of a Statistical Life Year framework.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGeographic disparities exist for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States (US). Area-level socioeconomic status (SES) may influence CRC outcomes through multiple pathways, including by influencing screening adherence. We completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of area-level SES and CRC incidence, mortality, and screening among US individuals.
methodsOriginal research articles were identified from biomedical databases. Eligible studies reported associations between area-level SES at the census block or tract level with CRC incidence, mortality, or screening in a US-based sample. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate summary hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between area-level SES and CRC outcomes.
resultsTwenty-six studies were included in the systematic review. Living in an area in the lowest SES quantile was associated with higher CRC risk (HR 1.37 [CI: 1.34-1.41]). Associations were similar in race-stratified analyses for White (HR 1.43 [CI: 1.39-1.47]), Black (HR 1.18 [CI: 0.96-1.44]), and Asian/Pacific Islander racial status (HR 1.18, [CI: 1.08-1.28]). For individuals with CRC, lower area-level SES was associated with risk for overall mortality (HR 1.26 [CI: 1.23-1.29]) and CRC-specific mortality (HR 1.24 [CI: 1.22-1.26]). Lower area-level SES was associated with lower completion of recommended screening for CRC (OR 0.76 [CI: 0.74-0.79]).
conclusionsIndividuals who reside in areas with less socioeconomic resources have elevated risk for CRC incidence and mortality. Healthcare policies and interventions focused on low resource settings may increase uptake of preventative screening leading to a reduction in geographic disparities for CRC.
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.