2021
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.11.049
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Participation in Competing Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Health Services Study (PICCOLINO Study)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
15
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Here, we could assess outcomes such as participation, usability, positivity rate, and diagnostic yield, as done, for example, in colorectal cancer screening trials. [38] , [39] , [40] A drawback is that clinical effectiveness studies (including randomized trials) of medical tests are generally much more time- and resource-consuming than cross-sectional test accuracy studies, although this may be less of a problem in a pandemic setting due to the large number of potential study subjects and available funds.…”
Section: Potential Solutions In the Absence Of Reliable Reference Standard For Covid-19mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here, we could assess outcomes such as participation, usability, positivity rate, and diagnostic yield, as done, for example, in colorectal cancer screening trials. [38] , [39] , [40] A drawback is that clinical effectiveness studies (including randomized trials) of medical tests are generally much more time- and resource-consuming than cross-sectional test accuracy studies, although this may be less of a problem in a pandemic setting due to the large number of potential study subjects and available funds.…”
Section: Potential Solutions In the Absence Of Reliable Reference Standard For Covid-19mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To increase screening uptake, providers should provide patients with multiple options for CRC screening. This is supported by randomized controlled trial data that found that offering patients a choice between colonoscopy or FIT (26.5%) improves screening uptake when compared to only recommending colonoscopy (17.5%; p < 0.001) ( Pilonis et al, 2021 ). However, studies investigating CRC screening discussion patterns found that providers only discuss multiple options with patients up to half the time ( Zapka et al, 2011 , Wolf et al, 2007 , Laiyemo et al, 2014 , Lafata et al, 2011 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Such comparability of the groups allocated to FIT × 2 and once-only PCOL strategies, may not be guaranteed in other RCTs that allow for a choice between FIT and PCOL within a screening arm. There are two other ongoing RCTs 11 , 12 which have been designed with separate FIT and PCOL arms, whereas another RCT 13 allowed for crossover between the PCOL and FIT arms and two other RCTs 14 , 15 have been designed to compare hybrid PCOL+FIT strategies against either PCOL or FIT as the control arm.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%