Trial reportPloS one2026
Promoting shared decision-making in colorectal cancer screening in primary care: A cluster randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 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.
- Citizen advisory groups for the creation and improvement of decision aids: experience from two Swiss centers for primary care.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn Switzerland, primary care physicians (PCP) prescribe colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rather than offering a choice between colonoscopy and faecal occult blood test (FOBT). This study evaluated a training program promoting shared decision-making for CRC screening.
methodsPCP from a research network were randomized 1:1 into intervention or control. The intervention group received study materials, patient decision aids, evidence summary, FOBT sample kit, and personalized feedback on CRC screening practices. PCP documented CRC screening decisions of 40 consecutive patients (ages 50-75) four months post-intervention. The control group received no materials before data collection.
resultsOf 110 PCP randomized, 83 (76%) collected data on 3,171 patients (mean age 62, 50% women). PCP in the intervention group were more likely than controls to have at least one patient tested or planning FOBT (84% vs. 56%; unadjusted RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.13 to 2.04). In a sensitivity analysis restricted to 62 PCP who participated in a previous data collection, 72% (21/29) already met the primary outcome in the intervention group at baseline and 49% (16/33) in the control group (RR: 1.49; 95% CI: 0.98 to 2.28). When contrasting the change within PCP from the 2017 and 2018 data collection, there was no significant increase in proportion of PCP who met primary outcome between intervention and control group, while it might have increased the proportion of PCP already prescribing FOBT to prescribe it to more of their patients.
conclusionA mailed intervention increased FOBT prescriptions, but selection bias may have influenced results.
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.