Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37076272›Full record

ArticleGut2023

Impact of delayed screening invitations on screen-detected and interval cancers in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme: individual-level data analysis.

Esther Toes-Zoutendijk, Lucie de Jonge, Carola Adriana van Iersel, Manon C W Spaander, Anneke J van Vuuren, Folkert van Kemenade, Christian R Ramakers, Evelien Dekker, Iris D Nagetaal, Monique E van Leerdam and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gut, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Esther Toes-ZoutendijkPublic Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e.toes-zoutendijk@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-4001-2949
Lucie de JongePublic Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5718-1058
Carola Adriana van IerselPublic Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Manon C W SpaanderGastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9103-9757
Anneke J van VuurenGastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Folkert van KemenadePathology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Christian R RamakersClinical Chemistry, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Evelien DekkerGastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4363-0745
Iris D NagetaalPathology, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Monique E van LeerdamGastroenterology and Hepatology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5719-3208
Iris Lansdorp-VogelaarPublic Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9438-2753
Erasmus MC · NLAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the impact of delayed invitation on screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers (CRC) within a faecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based CRC screening programme.

designAll individuals that participated in 2017 and 2018 with a negative FIT and were eligible for CRC screening in 2019 and 2020 were included using individual-level data. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association between either the different time periods (ie, '

resultsPositive predictive value for advanced neoplasia (AN) was slightly lower

conclusionThe impact of the first COVID-19 wave on screening yield was modest. A very small proportion of the FIT negatives had an interval CRC possibly due to an extended interval, which potentially could have been prevented if they had received the invitation earlier. Nonetheless, no increase in interval CRC rate was observed, indicating that an extended invitation interval up to 30 months had no negative impact on the performance of the CRC screening programme and a modest extension of the invitation interval seems an appropriate intervention.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsCOVID-19ColonoscopyEarly Detection of CancerHumansMass ScreeningOccult BloodPredictive Value of TestsCOLORECTAL CANCER SCREENINGCOVID-19

Identifiers

PMID37076272
PMCPMC10314061
OpenAlexW4366386719

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.