ReviewFrontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland)2022
Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening: From One-Size-FITs-All to Tailor-Made.
Review in Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the predictive value of multiple rounds of faecal haemoglobin measurement for the prediction of advanced neoplasia and colorectal cancer: an analysis of data from the Dutch national colorectal cancer screening programme.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Proteomic analysis of saliva reveals changes in proteomic profiles during colorectal cancer in an Iranian cohort.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Colon and rectal cancer: An emergent public health problem.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Neoplasia detection in FIT positive screening colonoscopies compared with an age-controlled symptomatic cohort: a retrospective review.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for colorectal cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey, 2009-2021.Epidemiology and health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) and its precursor lesions, advanced adenomas (AA), has been shown to effectively reduce CRC-related mortality. However, the method of CRC screening varies among countries. Primary colonoscopy screening is the most effective screening option from an individual point of view, but it is costly and population-wide participation rates are relatively low. Repeated screening with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a non-invasive and inexpensive way to select individuals at high risk for CRC for colonoscopy. Despite its widespread use and mostly high participation rates, FIT is not perfect. Its sensitivity for advanced neoplasia (AN) is low. Besides, the false positivity rate of FIT is relatively high. This leads to unnecessary colonoscopies, anxiety, and risks among FIT-positives. New strategies need to be developed to improve CRC screening. In the past years, much research has been undertaken on risk-based screening or risk models. These include tests consisting of multiple risk factors and/or biomarkers that either assess the risk of disease at a single point in time (cross-sectional risk models) or predict the risk of developing CRC in the future (longitudinal risk models). We provide an overview of the developments on risk models for CRC screening and discuss some of the obstacles that need to be overcome to enable widespread implementation in existing CRC screening programs.
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.