Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42840343›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2026

Global variability in colorectal cancer screening guidelines: panel composition and recommendations.

Koki Nakajima, Hiroaki Saito, Yoshitaka Nishikawa

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Koki NakajimaJapanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical Center, Wakayama City, Wakayama 640-8558, Japan.
Hiroaki SaitoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Soma Central Hospital, Soma City, Fukushima 976-0016, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0824-454X
Yoshitaka NishikawaDepartment of Health Informatics, Kyoto University School of Public Health, Kyoto City, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3313-1990

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

colorectal neoplasmsconflict of interestguidelineinternational comparisonscreening

Identifiers

PMID42840343
PMCPMC13639361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.