Cargando…

A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions

PURPOSE: In this scoping review, we examined the international literature on risk-stratified bowel screening to develop recommendations for future research, practice and policy. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched from inception to 18 October 2021: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Coch...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cairns, J. M., Greenley, S., Bamidele, O., Weller, D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8934381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35306592
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10552-022-01568-9
_version_ 1784671836029583360
author Cairns, J. M.
Greenley, S.
Bamidele, O.
Weller, D.
author_facet Cairns, J. M.
Greenley, S.
Bamidele, O.
Weller, D.
author_sort Cairns, J. M.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: In this scoping review, we examined the international literature on risk-stratified bowel screening to develop recommendations for future research, practice and policy. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched from inception to 18 October 2021: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forward and backwards citation searches were also undertaken. All relevant literature were included. RESULTS: After de-deduplication, 3,629 records remained. 3,416 were excluded at the title/abstract screening stage. A further 111 were excluded at full-text screening stage. In total, 102 unique studies were included. Results showed that risk-stratified bowel screening programmes can potentially improve diagnostic performance, but there is a lack of information on longer-term outcomes. Risk models do appear to show promise in refining existing risk stratification guidelines but most were not externally validated and less than half achieved good discriminatory power. Risk assessment tools in primary care have the potential for high levels of acceptability and uptake, and therefore, could form an important component of future risk-stratified bowel screening programmes, but sometimes the screening recommendations were not adhered to by the patient or healthcare provider. The review identified important knowledge gaps, most notably in the area of organisation of screening services due to few pilots, and what risk stratification might mean for inequalities. CONCLUSION: We recommend that future research focuses on what organisational challenges risk-stratified bowel screening may face and a consideration of inequalities in any changes to organised bowel screening programmes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10552-022-01568-9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8934381
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89343812022-03-21 A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions Cairns, J. M. Greenley, S. Bamidele, O. Weller, D. Cancer Causes Control Review PURPOSE: In this scoping review, we examined the international literature on risk-stratified bowel screening to develop recommendations for future research, practice and policy. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched from inception to 18 October 2021: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forward and backwards citation searches were also undertaken. All relevant literature were included. RESULTS: After de-deduplication, 3,629 records remained. 3,416 were excluded at the title/abstract screening stage. A further 111 were excluded at full-text screening stage. In total, 102 unique studies were included. Results showed that risk-stratified bowel screening programmes can potentially improve diagnostic performance, but there is a lack of information on longer-term outcomes. Risk models do appear to show promise in refining existing risk stratification guidelines but most were not externally validated and less than half achieved good discriminatory power. Risk assessment tools in primary care have the potential for high levels of acceptability and uptake, and therefore, could form an important component of future risk-stratified bowel screening programmes, but sometimes the screening recommendations were not adhered to by the patient or healthcare provider. The review identified important knowledge gaps, most notably in the area of organisation of screening services due to few pilots, and what risk stratification might mean for inequalities. CONCLUSION: We recommend that future research focuses on what organisational challenges risk-stratified bowel screening may face and a consideration of inequalities in any changes to organised bowel screening programmes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10552-022-01568-9. Springer International Publishing 2022-03-20 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8934381/ /pubmed/35306592 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10552-022-01568-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review
Cairns, J. M.
Greenley, S.
Bamidele, O.
Weller, D.
A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions
title A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions
title_full A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions
title_fullStr A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions
title_full_unstemmed A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions
title_short A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions
title_sort scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8934381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35306592
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10552-022-01568-9
work_keys_str_mv AT cairnsjm ascopingreviewofriskstratifiedbowelscreeningcurrentevidencefuturedirections
AT greenleys ascopingreviewofriskstratifiedbowelscreeningcurrentevidencefuturedirections
AT bamideleo ascopingreviewofriskstratifiedbowelscreeningcurrentevidencefuturedirections
AT wellerd ascopingreviewofriskstratifiedbowelscreeningcurrentevidencefuturedirections
AT cairnsjm scopingreviewofriskstratifiedbowelscreeningcurrentevidencefuturedirections
AT greenleys scopingreviewofriskstratifiedbowelscreeningcurrentevidencefuturedirections
AT bamideleo scopingreviewofriskstratifiedbowelscreeningcurrentevidencefuturedirections
AT wellerd scopingreviewofriskstratifiedbowelscreeningcurrentevidencefuturedirections