ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Universal tumor screening and mainstream genetic testing for Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer: a scoping review of barriers and facilitators.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2026. 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.
- Outcomes of 'in-house' genetic testing within a specialist hereditary colorectal cancer registry.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and Lynch syndrome (LS) have elevated cancer risks and require personalized treatment and targeted surveillance. At-risk relatives can also benefit from preventive measures. However, LS remains largely undiagnosed. Integration of universal tumor screening (UTS) with mainstream genetic testing in patients with CRC has been recommended, but implementation of this approach remains inconsistent. This scoping review mapped evidence on barriers and facilitators in diagnostic pathways that integrate UTS and mainstream genetic testing for LS in CRC. A search of MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycINFO was conducted, and five articles were selected. Barriers and facilitators were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). The most frequently mapped domains were Environmental Context and Resources (in 5/5 articles) Social/Professional Role and Identity, Beliefs about Consequences, Social Influences, and Behavioral Regulation (all in 4/5 articles). Barriers included insufficient clinician education, difficulties in navigating consent processes and interpreting testing results, and perceived lack of evidence demonstrating the benefit of genetic testing. Unclear and conflicting perceptions among different professional groups about who should be responsible for essential components of genetic testing and follow-up also emerged. Social Influences such as strong leadership, collaboration, and networked support from "champions" acted as key facilitators. Mechanisms of Behavioral Regulation, including audit, feedback, and ongoing education, as well as appropriate resourcing, were identified as essential for sustaining practice change. Future studies could usefully explore patients' views and preferences regarding novel diagnostic pathways for LS in CRC that align UTS and mainstream genetic testing, as well as strategies developed and implemented in low-resource settings.
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.