ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Effect of colonoscopy screening on the risk of colorectal cancer in China: a follow-up study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Loss of GGT6 promotes colorectal cancer progression and correlates with poor prognosis: a study based on multi-database mining and functional validation.Translational cancer research · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for CRC screening, but its effectiveness in population-based programs requires further evaluation. Methods: We conducted a follow-up study in Xuzhou, China. Participants were recruited from 2014 to 2021, with follow-up continuing until December 2023. The study comprised two components: 1) an active follow-up to assess treatment outcomes for patients with colorectal advanced neoplasia (CAN) detected during screening; 2) a passive follow-up to compare CRC incidence and mortality between participants who underwent colonoscopy and those who refused it. Results: The active follow-up included 196 participants, while 15,440 were included the passive follow-up (4,029 in the colonoscopy group and 11,411 in the non-colonoscopy group). 96.43% (189/196) CAN patients were actively followed. However, only 25.93% (49/189) received treatment. The CRC incidence density was 35.77 per 100,000 person-years in the colonoscopy group, which was significantly lower than the 95.50 per 100,000 in the non-colonoscopy group ( Conclusions: Colonoscopy screening is effective in reducing the risk of CRC. However, its real-world effectiveness has been compromised by the low participation rate and the poor treatment adherence among screen-positive patients. The impact of colonoscopy screening on reducing CRC mortality remains undetermined.
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.