The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: The Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England began operating in 2006 with the aim of full roll out across England by December 2009. Subjects aged 60–69 are being invited to complete three guaiac faecal occult blood tests (6 windows) every 2 years. The programme aims to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer by 16% in those invited for screening. Methods: All subjects eligible for screening in the National Health Service in England are included on one database, which is populated from National Health Service registration data covering about 98% of the population of England. This analysis is only of subjects invited to participate in the first (prevalent) round of screening. Results: By October 2008 almost 2.1 million had been invited to participate, with tests being returned by 49.6% of men and 54.4% of women invited. Uptake ranged between 55–60% across the four provincial hubs which administer the programme but was lower in the London hub (40%). Of the 1.08 million returning tests 2.5% of men and 1.5% of women had an abnormal test. 17 518 (10 608 M, 6910 F) underwent investigation, with 98% having a colonoscopy as their first investigation. Cancer (n=1772) and higher risk adenomas (n=6543) were found in 11.6% and 43% of men and 7.8% and 29% of women investigated, respectively. 71% of cancers were ‘early’ (10% polyp cancer, 32% Dukes A, 30% Dukes B) and 77% were left-sided (29% rectal, 45% sigmoid) with only 14% being right-sided compared with expected figures of 67% and 24% for left and right side from UK cancer registration. Conclusion: In this first round of screening in England uptake and fecal occult blood test positivity was in line with that from the pilot and the original European trials. Although there was the expected improvement in cancer stage at diagnosis, the proportion with left-sided cancers was higher than expected.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006
Ferlay, J., Autier, P., Boniol, M., Heanue, M., Colombet, M., & Boyle, P. (2007) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl498 · Cited by 4,036
Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer
Hardcastle, J. D., Chamberlain, J. O., Robinson, M. H., Moss, S. M., Amar, S. S., Balfour, T. W., James, P. D., & Mangham, C. M. (1996) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)03386-7 · Cited by 2,793
Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008
Ferlay, J., Parkin, D. M., & Steliarova-Foucher, E. (2010) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2009.12.014 · Cited by 2,319
The English indices of deprivation 2004
Noble, M., Wright, G., Dibben, C., Smith, G., McLennan, D., Anttila, C., Barnes, H., Mokhtar, C., Noble, S., & Gardner, J. (2004) · Cited by 1,494
Association of Colonoscopy and Death From Colorectal Cancer
Baxter, N. N., Goldwasser, M. A., Paszat, L. F., Saskin, R., Urbach, D. R., & Rabeneck, L. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-150-1-200901060-00306 · Cited by 1,254
Cairns, S. R., Scholefield, J. H., Steele, R. J., Dunlop, M. G., Thomas, H. J. W., Evans, G. D., Eaden, J. A., Rutter, M. D., Atkin, W. P., Saunders, B. P., et al. (2010) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2009.179804 · Cited by 1,141
Self-citationColeman, M., Forman, D., Bryant, H., Butler, J., Rachet, B., Maringe, C., Nur, U., Tracey, E., Coory, M., Hatcher, J., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)62231-3 · Cited by 1,114
Hewitson, P., Glasziou, P., Watson, E., Towler, B., & Irwig, L. (2008) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.01875.x · Cited by 990
Bernie, T., Les, I., Paul, G., Jan, K., David, W., & Chris, S. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7158.559 · Cited by 811
van Rossum, L. G., van Rijn, A. F., Laheij, R. J., van Oijen, M. G., Fockens, P., van Krieken, H. H., Verbeek, A. L., Jansen, J. B., & Dekker, E. (2008) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.03.040 · Cited by 734
Cited by
Screening, T. I. U. P. O. B. C., Marmot, M. G., Altman, D. G., Cameron, D. A., Dewar, J. A., Thompson, S. G., & Wilcox, M. (2013) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.177 · Cited by 1,069
Colorectal cancer population screening programs worldwide in 2016: An update
Navarro, M., Nicolas, A., Ferrandez, A., & Lanas, A. (2017) · World Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3748/wjg.v23.i20.3632 · Cited by 611
Current and future colorectal cancer screening strategies
Shaukat, A., & Levin, T. R. (2022) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/s41575-022-00612-y · Cited by 516
Robertson, D. J., Lee, J. K., Boland, C. R., Dominitz, J. A., Giardiello, F. M., Johnson, D. A., Kaltenbach, T., Lieberman, D., Levin, T. R., & Rex, D. K. (2017) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2016.08.053 · Cited by 384
Beaton, C., Twine, C. P., Williams, G. L., & Radcliffe, A. G. (2013) · Colorectal Disease · doi:10.1111/codi.12129 · Cited by 278
Metadata
- Authors
- Logan, R. F. A., Patnick, J., Nickerson, C., Coleman, L., Rutter, M. D., & von Wagner, C.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2011-12-07
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1439-1446
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3288
- OpenAlex
- W2105643290
- Cited by
- 506
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 14.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300843
- The paper
- Logan, R. F. A., Patnick, J., Nickerson, C., Coleman, L., Rutter, M. D., & von Wagner, C. (2012). Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300843
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.
