ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2026
Mistrust and misinformation in a colorectal cancer care: rebuilding credibility in the digital age.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2026. 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
Mistrust in healthcare and the rapid spread of misinformation have become critical challenges in contemporary colorectal cancer (CRC) care. While diagnostic and therapeutic strategies have advanced, many patients now arrive at clinical appointments influenced by online narratives that distort risk, undermine screening, and question the intentions of clinicians and health systems. These dynamics are particularly evident among younger adults, who represent a growing proportion of CRC diagnoses and often rely on social media as a primary source of health information. This commentary explores how mistrust and misinformation intersect across the CRC continuum, from symptom interpretation and screening decisions to treatment acceptance and survivorship. It highlights how emotionally persuasive digital content can overshadow evidence-based guidance and complicate shared decision-making and delaying timely care. Addressing these challenges requires a deliberate shift in clinical communication: acknowledging uncertainty, engaging with cultural and digital contexts, and adopting a proactive presence in public information spaces. Strengthening trust is now inseparable from delivering high-quality CRC care and represents a collective responsibility for clinicians, institutions, and professional societies.
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.