Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

Health Services Research & Development

Go to the ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

HSR&D Citation Abstract

Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title

Comparing the effectiveness of competing tests for reducing colorectal cancer mortality: a network meta-analysis.

Elmunzer BJ, Singal AG, Sussman JB, Deshpande AR, Sussman DA, Conte ML, Dwamena BA, Rogers MA, Schoenfeld PS, Inadomi JM, Saini SD, Waljee AK. Comparing the effectiveness of competing tests for reducing colorectal cancer mortality: a network meta-analysis. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2015 Mar 1; 81(3):700-709.e3.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.
   Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions



Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Comparative effectiveness data pertaining to competing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests do not exist but are necessary to guide clinical decision making and policy. OBJECTIVE: To perform a comparative synthesis of clinical outcomes studies evaluating the effects of competing tests on CRC-related mortality. DESIGN: Traditional and network meta-analyses. Two reviewers identified studies evaluating the effect of guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), or colonoscopy on CRC-related mortality. INTERVENTIONS: gFOBT, FS, colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Traditional meta-analysis was performed to produce pooled estimates of the effect of each modality on CRC mortality. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to indirectly compare the effectiveness of screening modalities. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Traditional meta-analysis revealed that, compared with no intervention, colonoscopy reduced CRC-related mortality by 57% (relative risk [RR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.58), whereas FS reduced CRC-related mortality by 40% (RR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.78), and gFOBT reduced CRC-related mortality by 18% (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.88). NMA demonstrated nonsignificant trends favoring colonoscopy over FS (RR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.45-1.11) and FS over gFOBT (RR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51-1.09) for reducing CRC-related deaths. NMA-based simulations, however, revealed that colonoscopy has a 94% probability of being the most effective test for reducing CRC mortality and a 99% probability of being most effective when the analysis is restricted to screening studies. LIMITATIONS: Randomized trials and observational studies were combined within the same analysis. CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes studies demonstrate that gFOBT, FS, and colonoscopy are all effective in reducing CRC-related mortality. Network meta-analysis suggests that colonoscopy is the most effective test.





Questions about the HSR&D website? Email the Web Team.

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.