SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2023
A comprehensive systematic review of colorectal cancer screening clinical practices guidelines and consensus statements.
Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical Practice Guidelines on Normal Labour and Childbirth: A Systematic Review.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical practice guidelines for the nutrition of colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Quality in aesthetic medicine and surgery: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia)Pooled it
- Methodological and reporting quality of Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand clinical guidance documentsInternal medicine journal · 2025Article
- Current Perspectives on Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance in the Geriatric Population.Current gastroenterology reports · 2025Review
- Balancing early detection and over-screening: Evaluating colonoscopy's role in shaping colorectal cancer trends in Korea.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- A soft robotic "Add-on" for colonoscopy: increasing safety and comfort through force monitoring.npj Robotics · 2025Article
- Global, Regional, and National Disease Burden and Prediction Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Attributable to Tobacco, Alcohol, and Obesity From 1990 to 2030.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Multi-faceted strategies to advance health equity in colorectal cancer screening in primary care setting: quality improvement project.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- A 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine-Based Noninvasive Model for Early Detection of Colorectal Carcinomas and Advanced Adenomas: The METHOD-2 Study.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2024Observational
- Optimization of colorectal cancer screening strategies: New insights.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Article
- Exploring the Therapeutic Potential ofCurrent drug discovery technologies · 2024Article
- Esophagogastroscopic Abnormalities Potentially Guided Patients Younger than 50 Years Old to Undergo Colonoscopy Earlier: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
- Ferroptosis, Necroptosis, and Pyroptosis in Gastrointestinal Cancers: The Chief Culprits of Tumor Progression and Drug Resistance.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are essential for evidence-based medicine. The purpose of this systematic review was to appraise the quality and reporting of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening CPGs and CSs. After prospective registration (Prospero no: CRD42021286156), a systematic review searched CRC guidances in duplicate without language restrictions in ten databases, 20 society websites, and grey literature from 2018 to 2021. We appraised quality with AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting with RIGHT (% of total 35 items) tools. Twenty-four CPGs and 5 CSs were analysed. The median overall quality and reporting were 54.0% (IQR 45.7-75.0) and 42.0% (IQR 31.4-68.6). The applicability had low quality (AGREE II score <50%) in 83% of guidances (24/29). Recommendations and conflict of interest were low-reported (RIGHT score <50%) in 62% guidances (18/29) and 69% (20/29). CPGs that deployed systematic reviews had better quality and reporting than CSs (AGREE: 68.5% vs. 35.5%; p = 0.001; RIGHT: 74.6% vs. 41.4%; p = 0.001). In summary, CRC screening CPGs and CSs achieved low quality and reporting. It is necessary a revision and an improvement of the current guidances. Their development should apply a robust methodology using proper guideline development tools to obtain high-quality evidence-based documents.
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.