| Title |
Screening participation for people at increased risk of colorectal cancer due to family history: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Familial Cancer, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10689-013-9658-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Driss Ait Ouakrim, Trevor Lockett, Alex Boussioutas, John L. Hopper, Mark A. Jenkins |
| Abstract |
We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis of observational studies to identify and summarise the level of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation for people at increased risk due to family history of the disease. Medline, Cinhal, Embase and PsychInfo databases were comprehensively searched between January 1995 and May 2012 to identify relevant articles. To be included, studies had to report on screening for people who had at least one first-degree relative with CRC and no previous personal diagnosis of the disease. Pooled screening participation levels were calculated for each screening modality. Seventeen studies, accounting for a total of 13,269 subjects with a family history of CRC met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies, including a total of 6,901 subjects had a pooled faecal occult blood testing screening participation (at least once) of 25 % (95 % CI 12-38). Five studies including a total of 5,091 subjects had a pooled sigmoidoscopy-based screening participation (at least once) of 16 % (95 % CI 7-27). Seven studies including a total of 9,965 subjects had pooled participation colonoscopy-based screening (at least once) of 40 % (95 % CI 26-54). There was a significant level of screening heterogeneity between studies. This review identified a substantial underuse of CRC screening for people at increased risk of developing the disease. It highlights the potential opportunity that exists for increasing screening participation among this segment of the population and the need to adjust the current CRC screening policies towards that objective. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 31% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 May 2013.
All research outputs
#15,272,611
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from Familial Cancer
#336
of 558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,608
of 195,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Familial Cancer
#16
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 558 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 195,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.