ArticleCureus2026
Screening for Success: Turning the Tables on Colon Cancer Before It Strikes.
Article in Cureus, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Screening has been shown to reduce incidence and mortality, yet adherence remains suboptimal, particularly among underserved populations. Objective This study aimed to evaluate adherence to colorectal cancer screening guidelines among patients aged 45-75 years at Christ Health Center (CHC), a Federally Qualified Health Center in Birmingham, Alabama. Methods Patients aged 45-75 years without documented colorectal cancer screening in the preceding year were identified using the Azara Data Reporting and Visualization System. A total of 2,061 patients were initially identified; 191 were excluded due to death, relocation, unstable medical conditions, or receipt of psychiatric-only care, resulting in 1,870 patients eligible for review. Screening status was subsequently verified through the electronic medical record (EMR), and eligible patients were contacted up to three times to encourage completion of screening. Available screening modalities include colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), and stool DNA testing (Cologuard). Outcomes were recorded in a secure, HIPAA-compliant database. Patients found to be up to date with colorectal cancer screening despite inaccurate EMR documentation were excluded, yielding a final analytic cohort of 1,680 patients. Results The mean patient age was 67.3 years, and 1,179 (62.2%) were female. A total of 1,046 (55.9%) could not be reached despite multiple attempts. Among 585 (31.3%) contacted patients, 319 (54.5%) agreed to screening while 266 (45.5%) declined. In addition, 243 (13%) had prior screening that was not mapped appropriately within the EMR. The group most frequently lacking up-to-date screening was females aged 65-75 years, while the lowest percentage occurred among newly eligible patients aged 45-55 years. Conclusion Direct patient outreach significantly improved screening uptake among eligible patients, demonstrating the effectiveness of proactive communication in a community health setting. However, barriers such as incomplete EMR documentation, patient engagement challenges, and insurance limitations persist. Enhanced outreach efforts, improved record integration, and targeted education strategies are needed to strengthen colorectal cancer screening adherence in underserved populations.
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.