ReviewPreventive medicine reports2026
The efficacy of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Preventive medicine reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To estimate sensitivity and specificity for two major colorectal cancer screening tests in asymptomatic average-risk adults: fecal immunochemical testing and colonoscopy. Methods: This review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD420250635078) on 7 January 2025 and conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed and Scopus were searched without publication date restrictions from database-specific inception dates to 26 June 2025: PubMed from 1946 and Scopus from 1788. Randomized trials and observational studies were screened using predefined eligibility criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane tools and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Results: Seventeen studies met inclusion criteria. Fecal immunochemical testing had a pooled sensitivity of 77% (95% CI: 67%-85%) and specificity of 95% (95% CI: 93%-96%). Colonoscopy showed higher performance, with sensitivity of 97% (95% CI: 91%-99%) and specificity of 99% (95% CI: 96%-100%). Subgroup analyses indicated variation in fecal immunochemical testing sensitivity across study designs and income settings, whereas specificity remained high. Conclusions: Colonoscopy remains the benchmark for colorectal cancer detection, while fecal immunochemical testing is a practical, non-invasive option where colonoscopy capacity is limited.
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.