ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Evaluating quality indicators in colorectal cancer screening via fecal immunochemical tests: a five-year study from a developing country.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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.
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
backgroundAssessing quality indicators in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening via the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is crucial. However, data on developing countries with lower CRC rates, lifestyle transitions, newly established screening programs, and no consensus on optimal targets are scarce.
methodsThis analysis evaluated 2,209 average-risk individuals aged 50–70 years in Iran between 2017 and 2022. The polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SDR), and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) were calculated. Patient relationships with the center, colonoscopist, bowel preparation, and comorbidities were assessed. Additionally, potential risk factors for bowel preparation quality were examined.
resultsThe analysis revealed a PDR of 34.5%, an ADR of 25.3%, an advanced ADR of 10%, a proximal ADR of 13.0%, an SDR of 1%, and a CRC rate of 2.7%. After adjustment, adenoma risk was greater in men (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.49–2.69; p < 0.01) and those aged 60–69 (OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.04–1.58; p = 0.02), with similar trends for other detection rates. Polyps but not adenomas were more common in public centers (OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.04–1.57; p = 0.02) and among the academic group (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.07–1.68; p = 0.01). PDR and APC were higher in colonoscopies with cecal intubation (p < 0.05). Bowel preparation quality was higher in private centers, with academic physicians, and among patients with a BMI < 30 (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe results provide early evidence of proposed ADR targets in developing countries. Given that the ADR depends on background epidemiology, implementing a dynamic, standard living point system based on extensive data is crucial. We recommend updating physicians on screening guidelines, prioritizing men, older adults, diabetic patients, and obese individuals.
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.