ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)
Preventing colorectal cancer deaths.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center). 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study evaluated a system-level quality improvement initiative designed to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening completion rates within the HealthTexas Provider Network, an employed primary care group affiliated with Baylor Scott & White Health. Methods: We implemented a series of stepwise interventions between 2015 and 2025 to enhance screening uptake. Interventions included blinded and unblinded physician performance feedback, incentive alignment, and recognition of alternative screening modalities. Results: CRC screening rates improved from 65.1% in 2018 to 76.0% in 2025. Adoption of stool-based and noncolonoscopy screening increased from 2-4% to 22-25% of total screenings. Conclusion: Structured accountability and inclusion of alternative screening methods substantially improved CRC screening rates across a large primary care network. This initiative demonstrates the power of data transparency, performance incentives, and flexibility as successful tactics to increase screening options to improve CRC screening and, by extension, set up the potential to reduce preventable CRC deaths.
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.