ArticleJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2026
Global variability in colorectal cancer screening guidelines: panel composition and recommendations.
Article in Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Although many countries have developed CRC screening guidelines, how CRC screening guidelines are developed across countries remains unclear. This study examined guideline-development funding, stakeholders, and their conflicts of interest (COI), and compared CRC screening recommendations across Group of Seven (G7) countries. Methods: We reviewed the most recent CRC screening guidelines issued by official research organizations or governmental bodies in G7 countries. We extracted information on responsible organizations, panel composition, recommendations, target ages, screening tests and intervals, supporting evidence, funding, and COI. Results: While CRC screening recommendations showed some similarities across G7 countries, some differences were observed in starting age, screening modality, and implementation structure. Differences were also identified in funding, COI reporting and management, and stakeholder composition, including limited involvement of patient and public representatives. Conclusions: Colorectal cancer screening guidelines among G7 countries varied despite shared international evidence. These differences likely reflect country-specific factors, including population characteristics, screening participation, health system capacity, and cultural context. Given that guideline development involves diverse stakeholders, ensuring transparency in the guideline-development process is essential.
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.