↓ Skip to main content

Population-Based Colonoscopy Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
18 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
52 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
262 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Population-Based Colonoscopy Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Published in
JAMA Internal Medicine, July 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0960
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Bretthauer, Michal F. Kaminski, Magnus Løberg, Ann G. Zauber, Jaroslaw Regula, Ernst J. Kuipers, Miguel A. Hernán, Eleanor McFadden, Annike Sunde, Mette Kalager, Evelien Dekker, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Kjetil Garborg, Maciej Rupinski, Manon C. W. Spaander, Marek Bugajski, Ole Høie, Tryggvi Stefansson, Geir Hoff, Hans-Olov Adami

Abstract

Although some countries have implemented widespread colonoscopy screening, most European countries have not introduced it because of uncertainty regarding participation rates, procedure-related pain and discomfort, endoscopist performance, and effectiveness. To our knowledge, no randomized trials on colonoscopy screening currently exist. To investigate participation rate, adenoma yield, performance, and adverse events of population-based colonoscopy screening in several European countries. A population-based randomized clinical trial was conducted among 94 959 men and women aged 55 to 64 years of average risk for colon cancer in Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden from June 8, 2009, to June 23, 2014. Colonoscopy screening or no screening. Participation in colonoscopy screening, cancer and adenoma yield, and participant experience. Study outcomes were compared by country and endoscopist. Of 31 420 eligible participants randomized to the colonoscopy group, 12 574 (40.0%) underwent screening. Participation rates were 60.7% in Norway (5354 of 8816), 39.8% in Sweden (486 of 1222), 33.0% in Poland (6004 of 18 188), and 22.9% in the Netherlands (730 of 3194) (P < .001). The cecum intubation rate was 97.2% (12 217 of 12 574), with 9726 participants (77.4%) not receiving sedation. Of the 12 574 participants undergoing colonoscopy screening, we observed 1 perforation (0.01%), 2 postpolypectomy serosal burns (0.02%), and 18 cases of bleeding owing to polypectomy (0.14%). Sixty-two individuals (0.5%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 3861 (30.7%) had adenomas, of which 1304 (10.4%) were high-risk adenomas. Detection rates were similar in the proximal and distal colon. Performance differed significantly between endoscopists; recommended benchmarks for cecal intubation (95%) and adenoma detection (25%) were not met by 6 (17.1%) and 10 of 35 endoscopists (28.6%), respectively. Moderate or severe abdominal pain after colonoscopy was reported by 601 of 3611 participants (16.7%) examined with standard air insufflation vs 214 of 5144 participants (4.2%) examined with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation (P < .001). Colonoscopy screening entails high detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Participation rates and endoscopist performance vary significantly. Postprocedure abdominal pain is common with standard air insufflation and can be significantly reduced by using CO2. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00883792.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 205 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 14%
Student > Master 22 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Other 15 7%
Student > Bachelor 15 7%
Other 37 18%
Unknown 72 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Engineering 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 80 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 185. 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 02 December 2022.
All research outputs
#219,498
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Internal Medicine
#1,141
of 11,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,288
of 370,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Internal Medicine
#41
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 85.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 370,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.