Interventions for Increasing Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

GastroenterologyApr 1, 2026 (epub)
Clinical ResearchGastroenterology

Daryl Ramai, Chun-Wei Pan, Bjorn Rodriguez et al.

✦ AI-curated · Sources linked

In 30 seconds

This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared eight strategies for increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake across 76 randomized clinical trials. Patient navigation and mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach significantly outperformed usual care: navigation had an RR of 1.58 (95% CI, 1.23-2.02), and mailed FIT outreach an RR of 1.36 (95% CI, 1.07-1.74). Mailed FIT outreach was particularly effective where baseline uptake was below 30%. Evidence certainty was mostly moderate to low, and educational multimedia showed promise in higher-uptake settings and recent studies.

Key findings

  • Patient navigation increased screening uptake versus usual care (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.23-2.02).
  • Mailed FIT outreach increased uptake versus usual care (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.74) and outperformed colonoscopy outreach (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63).
  • In settings with baseline uptake below 30%, mailed FIT outreach had an RR of 3.12 (95% CI, 1.70-5.71).
  • Choice-based and colonoscopy outreach were not significantly more effective than usual care; evidence certainty was mostly moderate to low.

Why it matters

Screening uptake remains suboptimal despite its role in reducing colorectal cancer mortality. These comparative findings suggest that navigation and mailed FIT outreach can improve participation, while the relative performance of strategies may depend on baseline uptake. The review also highlights uncertainty in the evidence, which matters when interpreting rankings and considering how broadly results apply.

What to keep in mind

The certainty of evidence was mostly moderate to low, limiting confidence in comparative rankings. The abstract does not report participant totals or follow-up duration.

Source

Published in Gastroenterology. This summary was written by xxcode from the publication's abstract and metadata. It is not peer reviewed and is not a substitute for the original article. For clinical decisions, review the original publication.

ShareTelegramLinkedIn

AI-generated summaries may contain errors or omissions. Verify clinically important information with the original publication.

More in Gastroenterology

Want this personalized?

Stop searching the literature. Choose what you follow and xxcode will build your personalized medical digest.

  • Your specialties
  • Your filters and thresholds
  • Clinical Research + Case Reports, tuned separately
  • Automatic weekly delivery
  • Audio and text

Prefer listening? Personalized audio digests are available with Pro.

Stay updated for free

Get the 3 most interesting publications in one specialty each week.

Weekly email. Unsubscribe anytime.