ReviewWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2015
How to improve colon cancer screening rates.
Review in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Factors Affecting the Screening of New Colorectal Cancer Cases Between 2020 and 2022 in Isfahan Province.International journal of preventive medicine · 2026Article
- Colorectal cancer screening in adults aged 45-49: provider availability, CT colonography access, and screening rates.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2025Article
- Inappropriate Multi-Target Stool DNA Use for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Risks, Compliance, and Outcomes.Cureus · 2023Article
- The effectiveness of real-time computer-aided and quality control systems in colorectal adenoma and polyp detection during colonoscopies: a meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- Cell-free DNA liquid biopsy for early detection of gastrointestinal cancers: A systematic review.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Article
- The association between the composite quality measure "textbook outcome" and long term survival in operated colon cancer.Medicine · 2020Observational
- Impact of a mass media campaign on participation rates in a National Bowel Cancer Screening Program: a field experiment.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening-Who, How, and When?Clinical endoscopy · 2018Review
- Evaluating Outreach Methods for Multi-Target Stool DNA Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among an Employer Population.Journal of primary care & community healthObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal carcinoma is a common cause of death throughout the world and may be prevented by routine control, which can detect precancerous neoplasms and early cancers before they undergo malignant transformation or metastasis. Three strategies may improve colon cancer screening rates: convince the population about the importance of undergoing a screening test; achieve higher efficacy in standard screening tests and make them more available to the community and develop new more sensitive and efficacious screening methods and make them available as routine tests. In this light, the present study seeks to review these three means through which to increase colon cancer screening rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.