التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review. |
| المؤلفون: |
Ali, Omar, Gupta, Sunnia, Brain, Kate, Lifford, Kate J, Paranjothy, Shantini, Dolwani, Sunil |
| المصدر: |
Journal of Medical Screening; Mar2023, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p14-27, 14p |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
FECAL analysis, IMMUNOCHEMISTRY, CINAHL database, MEDICAL databases, COLONOSCOPY, MEDICAL information storage & retrieval systems, SYSTEMATIC reviews, VIRTUAL colonoscopy, PHARMACEUTICAL encapsulation, EARLY detection of cancer, COLORECTAL cancer, SIGMOIDOSCOPY, COMPARATIVE studies, MEDLINE, COMPUTED tomography, TUMOR markers, FECAL occult blood tests, BLOOD testing, DISEASE risk factors, ADULTS |
| مستخلص: |
Objective: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults. Method: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3rd, 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted. Results: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities. Conclusion: Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Journal of Medical Screening is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Complementary Index |
