MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977301343 · doi:10.1136/bmj.l5515

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline

2019· article· en· W2977301343 on OpenAlexaff
Lise Mørkved Helsingen, Per Olav Vandvik, Henriette C. Jodal, Thomas Agoritsas, Lyubov Lytvyn, Joseph C. Anderson, Reto Auer, Silje Bjerkelund Murphy, Majid A. Almadi, Douglas A. Corley, Casey Quinlan, Jonathan Fuchs, Annette McKinnon, Amir Qaseem, Anja Fog Heen, Reed Siemieniuk, Mette Kalager, Juliet A. Usher‐Smith, Iris Lansdorp‐Vogelaar, Michael Bretthauer, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsMontreal General HospitalMcMaster UniversityMcGill UniversityImpact
FundersUniversitetet i OsloCancer Research UK
KeywordsSigmoidoscopyGuidelineMedicineColonoscopyColorectal cancerColorectal cancer screeningCancer screeningFamily medicineCancerInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CLINICAL QUESTION: Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?" CURRENT PRACTICE: Numerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy. RECOMMENDATIONS: These recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option's practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations. THE EVIDENCE: Overall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: Based on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0140.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.010

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations211
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207