Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40747266›Full record

ReviewColorectal cancer2025

Stratified/risk-based screening for colorectal cancer in the UK: an overview.

Susanne Maxwell, David Weller, Becky Dennison, Lily Taylor, Hannah Miles, Joanne Cairns, Christian Von Wagner, Jazzine Smith, Juliet Usher-Smith

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Colorectal cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Public and Healthcare Professional Attitudes Towards Risk-Stratified Bowel Screening: A Qualitative Study Using an Info-Comic Book.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Susanne MaxwellUniversity of Edinburgh, Usher Institute, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8111-3490
David WellerUniversity of Edinburgh, Usher Institute, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8112-718X
Becky DennisonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0847-0723
Lily TaylorDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0832-9244
Hannah MilesHull York Medical School, Academy of Primary Care, Hull, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3827-0183
Joanne CairnsHull York Medical School, Academy of Primary Care, Hull, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5754-4269
Christian Von WagnerUniversity College London Institute of Epidemiology & Health, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7971-0691
Jazzine SmithUniversity College London Institute of Epidemiology & Health, London, UK.
Juliet Usher-SmithDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While colorectal cancer screening is well-established in the UK, at present, it uses a 'one-size fits-all' approach - that is, individual risk is not considered when determining screening regimens (except for some specific conditions such as Lynch syndrome). Stratified screening offers the prospect of directing more intensive screening toward those at higher risk - with a corresponding reduction of screening intensity among lower-risk individuals. Two key opportunities for stratifying colorectal cancer screening are (1) making better use of an individual's quantitative fecal hemoglobin result rather than the current approach of deeming tests to be positive over an arbitrary threshold and (2) gathering information on lifestyle, family history, genetics and other factors to establish risk of colorectal cancer - and using this information to tailor screening regimens. While there is encouraging evidence from modeling studies demonstrating reduced colonoscopy requirements and increased positive prediction of colorectal cancer when incorporating risk assessments within screening, we need 'real world' evidence on stratified screening to establish whether it is effective, improves screening outcomes and is acceptable to the public. We also need to know the impact these changes would have on existing screening programs, and how programs might adapt their organizational and IT processes.

Indexed as

Colorectal cancergenetic testingpersonal bowel cancer riskrisk-based colorectal screeningstratified screening

Identifiers

PMID40747266
PMCPMC12309461

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.