SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2025
Uptake of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Signaling Pathways, Clinical Features, Screening, Diagnosis, and Management.MedComm · 2026Review
- Hypoxia Associated Integration of Epigenetic, Metabolic, and Immune Biomarkers in Blood and Urine for Early Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Multimarker Panel.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) remains a major global health burden with higher mortality rate in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). It is well established that CRC screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality. However, data regarding uptake of CRC screening remains scarce in LMICs. Therefore, we aimed to quantify uptake of CRC screening in LMICs.
methodsWe searched for scientific literature published in any language using four online databases (Scopus, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Knowledge) from their inception to 1 August 2024. We included observational studies reporting the prevalence of uptake of CRC screening modalities in LMICs. A random-effects model was used to estimate pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were used to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity.
resultsSixty-nine studies encompassing data from 19 LMICs were eligible for final inclusion in this systematic review. The pooled prevalence of self-reported uptake of screening colonoscopy was 5.2% (95% CI, 3.1-7.8). The pooled proportion of individuals who self-reported undertaking screening gFOBT was 11.5% (95% CI, 8.2-15.3). Pooled prevalence of self-reported uptake of any CRC screening modalities was 9.1% (95% CI, 6.2-12.5). Subgroup analyses showed that uptake of CRC screening did not vary significantly across available study-level variables.
conclusionThis meta-analysis revealed low colorectal cancer screening rates, impeding early detection at the population level. LMICs should prioritize context-specific strategies to improve screening uptake.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40665178What 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.