ArticleCureus2025
Uptake of Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Deaf Adults in the United States.
Article in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople with disabilities face challenges in access and utilization of healthcare resources in part due to the additional resources needed for their healthcare delivery. There is little information about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake among deaf and hearing-impaired US adults. We evaluated the uptake of CRC screening among deaf US adults.
methodsWe used the 2018 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 5 Cycle 2). Our study cohort included 2,049 respondents (weighted population size = 107,282,358) without a personal history of CRC who were at least 50 years old, reported whether they were deaf or not, and answered questions regarding their ever use of CRC screening modalities (fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy). We used logistic regression analyses to examine the association of deafness with ever being screened for CRC. We used survey weights in all analyses. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsThere were 202 deaf respondents (weighted population size = 9,994,286) and 1,847 people with normal hearing (weighted population size = 97,288,072). Deaf respondents were older (mean age 70.6 years versus 62.1 years) and were more likely to be male (n = 116 (59.9%)) versus female (n = 86 (40.1%), P = 0.004). CRC screening uptake was similar among deaf and normal hearing adults (n = 173 (80%) versus n = 1,493 (72.6%), respectively; unadjusted OR = 1.51; 95% CI: 0.80-2.83 and adjusted OR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.32-1.60).
conclusionHearing impairment was not found to be a barrier to the uptake of CRC screening among US adults.
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.