4.7 Article

Meta-analysis: adherence to colorectal cancer screening and the detection rate for advanced neoplasia, according to the type of screening test

Journal

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 36, Issue 10, Pages 929-940

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.12071

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Italy Ministry of Health [I85J07000080001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background A variety of tests have been proposed for colorectal cancer (CRC), giving rise to uncertainty regarding the optimal approach. The efficacy and effectiveness of different tests are related to both screenee participation and the detection rate. Aim To perform a meta-analysis on adherence and detection rates of CRC screening tests. Methods Relevant publications were identified by MEDLINE/EMBASE and other databases for the period 19992012. A previous systematic review was used for the period before 19661999. RCTs and controlled studies including a direct comparison of the uptake rates among different options for CRC screening were included. Adherence and detection rates for advanced neoplasia and cancer were extracted. Risk for bias was ascertained according to CONSORT guidelines. Forrest plots were produced based on random-effect models. Results Fourteen studies provided data on 197910 subjects. Endoscopic strategies were associated with a lower participation (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.80) rate, but a higher detection rate of advanced neoplasia (RR: 3.21, 95% CI: 2.38, 4.32) compared with faecal tests. FIT was superior to g-FOBT with regard to both adherence (RR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.03, 1.30) and detection of advanced neoplasia (RR: 2.28, 95% CI 1.68, 3.10) and cancer (RR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.2, 3.2). Conclusion The superior accuracy of endoscopy compared with faecal tests minimised any impact of the participation rate in determining the detection rate of advanced neoplasia in a screening setting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available