Cited by 1,328Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes

Open access
Schreuders, Eline H, Ruco, Arlinda, Rabeneck, Linda, Schoen, Robert E, Sung, Joseph J Y, Young, Graeme P, Kuipers, Ernst J·2015·Gut

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks third among the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide, with wide geographical variation in incidence and mortality across the world. Despite proof that screening can decrease CRC incidence and mortality, CRC screening is only offered to a small proportion of the target population worldwide. Throughout the world there are widespread differences in CRC screening implementation status and strategy. Differences can be attributed to geographical variation in CRC incidence, economic resources, healthcare structure and infrastructure to support screening such as the ability to identify the target population at risk and cancer registry availability. This review highlights issues to consider when implementing a CRC screening programme and gives a worldwide overview of CRC burden and the current status of screening programmes, with focus on international differences.

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 · 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-309086

Cites

126 of 126 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [16]16. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Handbook of cancer prevention: cervix cancer screening. Lyon: IARC Press, 2010.
  2. [51]51. Lieberman DA. Clinical practice. Screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1179-87.
  3. [66]66. Lopez-Kostner F, Kronber U, Zarate AJ, et al. [A screening program for colorectal cancer in Chilean subjects aged fifty years or more]. Rev Med Chil 2012;140:281-6.
  4. [81]81. Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Brenner H. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Epidemiol Rev 2011;33:88-100.
  5. [87]87. Ministry of Health Slovak Republic. List of departments performing endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer (screening and primary screening colonoscopy) under the Professional Guidelines of the Ministry of Health no. Z06173 / 2011 -CFC for the execution of colorectal cancer screening, published in the Bulletin of the Ministry of Health, Volume 59, figure 19-31, dated September 1, 2011. 2001.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schreuders, E. H., Ruco, A., Rabeneck, L., Schoen, R. E., Sung, J. J. Y., Young, G. P., & Kuipers, E. J.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Flinders University (AU)
Corresponding author
Schreuders, Eline H
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-06-03
Volume
64
Issue
10
Pages
1637-1649
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2147072570
Cited by
1,328
References
126
Citations by year
2026: 71 · 2025: 108 · 2024: 133 · 2023: 144 · 2022: 165 · 2021: 183 · 2020: 131 · 2019: 140 · 2018: 94 · 2017: 74 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 17
FWCI
8.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gut (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Keywords
colorectal cancer, cancer screening programs, screening program implementation, colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, health infrastructure, cancer registry, target population identification, economic resources
MeSH terms
Colonoscopy, Humans, Mass Screening, Occult Blood, Global Health, Colorectal Neoplasms, Program Evaluation, Incidence, Early Detection of Cancer

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