| Title |
Computed tomography colonography versus colonoscopy for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s152147 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ralph B Duarte, Wanderley M Bernardo, Christiano M Sakai, Gustavo LR Silva, Hugo G Guedes, Rogerio Kuga, Edson Ide, Robson K Ishida, Paulo Sakai, Eduardo GH de Moura |
| Abstract |
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Optical colonoscopy (OC) is the first choice of investigation for assessing the state of the colon and it is excellent for CRC screening. Newer technologies such as computed tomography colonography (CTC) may also be useful in CRC screening. This systematic review compares the benefits of CTC and OC for CRC screening. This review includes all the available randomized clinical trials comparing CTC and OC for CRC screening in asymptomatic patients. Three studies were included in the systematic review and were submitted for meta-analysis. In the analysis of participation rates, only 2,333 of 8,104 (29%) patients who were invited for screening underwent the CTC, and only 1,486 of the 7,310 (20%) patients who were invited for screening underwent OC. The absolute risk difference in participation rate in the two procedures was 0.1 (95% CI, 0.05-0.14) in favor of CTC. In the analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) detection rates, 2,357 patients undergoing CTC and 1,524 patients undergoing OC were included. Of these, 135 patients (5.7%) who underwent a CTC and 130 patients (8.5%) who underwent an OC were diagnosed with ACN. The absolute risk difference in ACN detection rate in the two procedure types was -0.02 (with a 95% CI between -0.04 and -0.00) in favor of OC. CTC is an option for CRC screening in asymptomatic patients. However, as CTC was inferior in detecting ACN, it should not replace OC, which remains the gold standard. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Egypt | 1 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 82 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 33 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 31 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 17 September 2021.
All research outputs
#2,840,974
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#132
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,448
of 448,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 448,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.