Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 489

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Colonoscopic Screening of Average-Risk Women for Colorectal Neoplasia

Open access
Schoenfeld, Philip, Cash, Brooks, Flood, Andrew, Dobhan, Richard, Eastone, John, Coyle, Walter, Kikendall, James W., Kim, Hyungjin Myra, Weiss, David G., Emory, Theresa, Schatzkin, Arthur, Lieberman, David·2005·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Study 380 showed that some advanced colorectal neoplasias (i.e., adenomas at least 1 cm in diameter, villous adenomas, adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, or cancer) in men would be missed with the use of flexible sigmoidoscopy but detected by colonoscopy. In a tandem study, we examined the yield of screening colonoscopy in women. METHODS: To determine the prevalence and location of advanced neoplasia, we offered colonoscopy to consecutive asymptomatic women referred for colon-cancer screening. The diagnostic yield of flexible sigmoidoscopy was calculated by estimating the proportion of patients with advanced neoplasia whose lesions would have been identified if they had undergone flexible sigmoidoscopy alone. Lesions were considered detectable by flexible sigmoidoscopy if they were in the distal colon or if they were in the proximal colon in patients who had concurrent small adenomas in the distal colon, a finding that would have led to colonoscopy. The results were compared with the results from VA Cooperative Study 380 for age-matched men and women with negative fecal occult-blood tests and no family history of colon cancer. RESULTS: Colonoscopy was complete in 1463 women, 230 of whom (15.7 percent) had a family history of colon cancer. Colonoscopy revealed advanced neoplasia in 72 women (4.9 percent). If flexible sigmoidoscopy alone had been performed, advanced neoplasia would have been detected in 1.7 percent of these women (25 of 1463) and missed in 3.2 percent (47 of 1463). Only 35.2 percent of women with advanced neoplasia would have had their lesions identified if they had undergone flexible sigmoidoscopy alone, as compared with 66.3 percent of matched men from VA Cooperative Study 380 (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy may be the preferred method of screening for colorectal cancer in women.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa042990

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 489

Metadata

Authors
Schoenfeld, P., Cash, B., Flood, A., Dobhan, R., Eastone, J., Coyle, W., Kikendall, J. W., Kim, H. M., Weiss, D. G., Emory, T., Schatzkin, A., & Lieberman, D.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2005-05-19
Volume
352
Issue
20
Pages
2061-2068
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1993695589
Cited by
489
References
0
FWCI
21.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Colonoscopic Screening of Average-Risk Women for Colorectal Neoplasia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa042990
The paper
Schoenfeld, P., Cash, B., Flood, A., Dobhan, R., Eastone, J., Coyle, W., Kikendall, J. W., Kim, H. M., Weiss, D. G., Emory, T., Schatzkin, A., & Lieberman, D. (2005). Colonoscopic Screening of Average-Risk Women for Colorectal Neoplasia. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa042990

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.