47 Colorectal cancer screening – doing no harm? – A systematic review of the evidence (Ongoing)

Abstract

medicine and physical education journals, and written 2 responses to letters from those entrenched in poor methodologies. Despite our polite, transparent, scientifically-based pleas for 'constructive, collaborative debate' we have encountered editorial bias, e.g. turned down without review; turned down despite positive reviews; appealed editorial decisions and been prevented from responding to letters commenting Conclusions Others have attempted to diminish our contributions by employing in letters a tone of thinly disguised hostility or accusing us of evangelistic fervour whilst failing to justify their own methods. Yes, we are challenging; shifting an entire research culture, which has its roots in university teaching, is not easyscientific rigour in aspects of our discipline plays second fiddle to practical, convenient, traditional and feasible. Although this is happening on the periphery of mainstream medical research, children's health matters and as the population becomes increasingly sedentary and overweight we urgently need to develop scientifically rigorous methods to measure and interpret CRF in health and disease. Already a generation of researchers and policy makers has been misinformed and misled by flawed data. Those of us facing these challenges need to work together to develop strategies for shifting research culture back towards defensible science.

Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening—A systematic review with meta-analyses

“…Other findings will be reported in separate publications [31]. The design of the study was published online in abstract format in 2019 [32].…”