Observational studyMedicine2025
Conventional screening measure does not accurately capture screening status in a minority of patients with colorectal cancer.
Observational study in Medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) has been reported to be higher than the US general population, but CRC remains a prevalent cancer within the VA system. To examine CRC predictors and the extent to which the conventional definition of up-to-date screening applies to the population, we conducted a case-control study using VA data from 2012 to 2018. We classified patients into 5 categories: up-to-date or not up-to-date average-risk patients aged 50 to 75 (Categories 1 and 2), up-to-date or not up-to-date average-risk patients aged <50 or >75 (Categories 3 and 4), and high-risk patients (Category 5). Each CRC case was matched by age, sex, and facility with 4 controls. We performed multivariable conditional logistic regression, adjusting for race and ethnicity, diabetes, obesity, and alcohol use. Among 3714 CRC cases identified, Category 4 (odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% CI 1.11-1.78) and Category 5 (OR 6.23, 95% CI 5.06-7.66) patients had a higher risk of CRC compared to Category 1 patients. Compared with White patients, Black patients had a higher risk (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.37-1.73). Diabetes (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.51-1.81) and alcohol use disorder (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.35-1.73) were also associated with CRC. Most CRC cases occurred in individuals aged 50 to 75, but 12.5% occurred in persons who were outside of this age range or had high-risk personal or family history. The conventional measure of CRC screening, focused on average-risk individuals aged 50 to 75, does not reflect screening status in an important minority of CRC patients.
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.