ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025
Role of medico-administrative database in the selection of the target population in colorectal cancer screening program.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in average-risk populations requires filtering a target population based on medical information in population-based CRC screening programs (CRCSP). This study describes the level of consensus in medical exclusion practice and the role of the medico-administrative databases (MADB) in accurately targeting the eligible individuals for CRCSP screening campaigns. Design: The descriptive study combined a cross-sectional survey and a non-systematic literature review. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among CRCSPs worldwide. Information was collected on the use of MADB for identifying consensus-based exclusion criteria (applied by >50% of CRCSPs). When a MADB was used, the study assessed whether the definition (code lists, medical terminologies) of the exclusion criteria was available. These definitions were compared between programs to evaluate the degree of consensus. Results: In all, 20 out of the 31 CRCSPs (Australia, England, Manitoba, Ontario, Washington State, 26 European countries) participating in the survey implemented medical exclusions. Five consensus-based exclusion criteria were identified (personal history of CRC, inflammatory bowel disease, adenoma, recent colonoscopy, genetic risk). However, these criteria were not uniformly defined in MADBs (i.e., CRC phenotype includes ICD-10 codes C18-C21 in Catalonia, while the C21 code was excluded elsewhere). Furthermore, although the MADBs exist and contain relevant information, they remain inaccessible to screening management structures in some countries (e.g., in France). Conclusion: The number of consensus-based criteria was limited, and they were the least nuanced, likely because they are easier to collect using the current CRCSPs management resources. These consensual criteria can be queried in most MADBs. However, the use of MADBs was not standardized across programs for various reasons (absence of a database, unavailability of information in the database when it exists, inaccessibility of the database when it exists), limiting comparability between them. Standardizing the five consensus criteria across all programs would only be effective if the disparity caused by systemic failures in the organization of each program was controlled.
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.