Evaluation of Intervention Strategies to Improve Follow-Up Colonoscopy After Abnormal FIT/FOBT Result: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 26.3 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Wei Yu Chua, Luke Xavier Chew, Claire K M Chan, Zoe Tong, Lok Pui Ng, Cheng Ean Chee, Dawn Chong, Ravindran Kanesvaran, Priyanka Rajendram, Clarence K W Kwan, Andrew B E Kwek, Emile K W Tan, Sze Huey Tan, Lian Leng Low, Michael Pignone, Kennedy Y Y Ng
{"title":"Evaluation of Intervention Strategies to Improve Follow-Up Colonoscopy After Abnormal FIT/FOBT Result: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Wei Yu Chua, Luke Xavier Chew, Claire K M Chan, Zoe Tong, Lok Pui Ng, Cheng Ean Chee, Dawn Chong, Ravindran Kanesvaran, Priyanka Rajendram, Clarence K W Kwan, Andrew B E Kwek, Emile K W Tan, Sze Huey Tan, Lian Leng Low, Michael Pignone, Kennedy Y Y Ng","doi":"10.1001/jamainternmed.2026.4827","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Early detection through screenings has been shown to improve morbidity and mortality. While fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) are established cost-effective screening modalities for colorectal cancer, follow-up colonoscopy screening rates remain suboptimal.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate interventions targeting colonoscopy completion and the prevalence of colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT/FOBT result.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to May 9, 2026, and the bibliographies of relevant studies were screened.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Original studies, published in English, examining nonrandomized interventional studies or randomized clinical trials comparing interventions to improve follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT/FOBT result were included. Prevalence and risk ratios (RRs) with accompanying 95% CIs for each study were computed, and the results were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>This study was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Two authors reviewed each study and extracted the data independently, with discrepancies referred to a third independent author.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Outcomes included prevalence and RR of various interventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 21 studies involving 19 613 patients (8101 female individuals [41.3%] and 11 512 male individuals [58.7%]; age range, 50-75 years) evaluating interventions to improve colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT/FOBT result were included. Patient navigation (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.15-1.33; I2 = 57.1), patient reminders (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.04-1.67; I2 = 89.9), clinician reminders (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.12-1.65; I2 = 94.4), and automated referrals to gastrointestinal consult (RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.09-2.60; I2 = 91.9) were effective in increasing follow-up colonoscopy completion with moderate to high heterogeneity detected within and across intervention types. Sensitivity analyses excluding outliers resulted in low heterogeneity for patient navigation, patient reminders (messaging), and clinician reminders, while moderate heterogeneity remained for automated referrals. Follow-up colonoscopy increased from 4755 of 10 263 in control to 6272 of 9350 after interventions; pooled prevalence estimates were 47.8% and 69.1%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis, patient-level and system-level interventions, including patient navigation, patient reminders, and clinician reminders, are associated with increased completion of follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT/FOBT result. More studies are required to evaluate the efficacy of automated referrals to gastrointestinal consult due to large heterogeneity between studies and to study the incremental effect of each intervention in multicomponent interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":14714,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":26.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13639806/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2026.4827","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Early detection through screenings has been shown to improve morbidity and mortality. While fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) are established cost-effective screening modalities for colorectal cancer, follow-up colonoscopy screening rates remain suboptimal.

Objective: To evaluate interventions targeting colonoscopy completion and the prevalence of colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT/FOBT result.

Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to May 9, 2026, and the bibliographies of relevant studies were screened.

Study selection: Original studies, published in English, examining nonrandomized interventional studies or randomized clinical trials comparing interventions to improve follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT/FOBT result were included. Prevalence and risk ratios (RRs) with accompanying 95% CIs for each study were computed, and the results were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis.

Data extraction and synthesis: This study was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Two authors reviewed each study and extracted the data independently, with discrepancies referred to a third independent author.

Main outcomes and measures: Outcomes included prevalence and RR of various interventions.

Results: A total of 21 studies involving 19 613 patients (8101 female individuals [41.3%] and 11 512 male individuals [58.7%]; age range, 50-75 years) evaluating interventions to improve colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT/FOBT result were included. Patient navigation (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.15-1.33; I2 = 57.1), patient reminders (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.04-1.67; I2 = 89.9), clinician reminders (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.12-1.65; I2 = 94.4), and automated referrals to gastrointestinal consult (RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.09-2.60; I2 = 91.9) were effective in increasing follow-up colonoscopy completion with moderate to high heterogeneity detected within and across intervention types. Sensitivity analyses excluding outliers resulted in low heterogeneity for patient navigation, patient reminders (messaging), and clinician reminders, while moderate heterogeneity remained for automated referrals. Follow-up colonoscopy increased from 4755 of 10 263 in control to 6272 of 9350 after interventions; pooled prevalence estimates were 47.8% and 69.1%, respectively.

Conclusions and relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, patient-level and system-level interventions, including patient navigation, patient reminders, and clinician reminders, are associated with increased completion of follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT/FOBT result. More studies are required to evaluate the efficacy of automated referrals to gastrointestinal consult due to large heterogeneity between studies and to study the incremental effect of each intervention in multicomponent interventions.

干预策略对改善异常FIT/FOBT术后结肠镜检查结果的评价:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
重要性:结直肠癌是全球癌症死亡的第二大原因。通过筛查进行早期发现已证明可改善发病率和死亡率。虽然粪便免疫化学试验(FIT)或粪便隐血试验(FOBT)是确定的具有成本效益的结直肠癌筛查方式,但后续结肠镜筛查率仍然不理想。目的:评价针对FIT/FOBT结果异常后结肠镜检查完成率和结肠镜检查完成率的干预措施。数据来源:检索MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane数据库,检索时间为建库至2026年5月9日,筛选相关研究文献。研究选择:纳入英文发表的原创研究,检查非随机介入研究或随机临床试验,比较干预措施改善异常FIT/FOBT结果后的随访结肠镜检查。计算每项研究的患病率和风险比(rr)及其95% ci,并使用随机效应荟萃分析汇总结果。数据提取和综合:本研究按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)报告指南进行。两位作者对每项研究进行了审查,并独立提取了数据,差异由第三位独立作者处理。主要结局和测量:结局包括各种干预措施的患病率和RR。结果:共纳入21项研究,涉及19 613例患者(女性8101例[41.3%],男性11 512例[58.7%],年龄范围50-75岁),评估干预措施改善FIT/FOBT结果异常后结肠镜检查完成情况。患者导航(RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.15-1.33; I2 = 57.1)、患者提醒(RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.04-1.67; I2 = 89.9)、临床医生提醒(RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.12-1.65; I2 = 94.4)和自动转诊到胃肠道会诊(RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.09-2.60; I2 = 91.9)在提高随访结肠镜检查完成度方面是有效的,在干预类型内部和不同干预类型之间检测到中度至高度异质性。排除异常值的敏感性分析导致患者导航、患者提醒(消息传递)和临床医生提醒的异质性较低,而自动转诊的异质性仍然中等。随访结肠镜检查从10例中的4755例( 263例)增加到干预后的9350例中的6272例;合并患病率估计分别为47.8%和69.1%。结论和相关性:在本系统综述和荟萃分析中,患者层面和系统层面的干预措施,包括患者导航、患者提醒和临床医生提醒,与异常FIT/FOBT结果后结肠镜随访完成度的增加有关。由于研究之间存在很大的异质性,需要更多的研究来评估自动转诊到胃肠道会诊的疗效,并研究多组分干预中每种干预措施的增量效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JAMA Internal Medicine
JAMA Internal Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
43.50
自引率
1.30%
发文量
371
期刊介绍: JAMA Internal Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed journal committed to advancing the field of internal medicine worldwide. With a focus on four core priorities—clinical relevance, clinical practice change, credibility, and effective communication—the journal aims to provide indispensable and trustworthy peer-reviewed evidence. Catering to academics, clinicians, educators, researchers, and trainees across the entire spectrum of internal medicine, including general internal medicine and subspecialties, JAMA Internal Medicine publishes innovative and clinically relevant research. The journal strives to deliver stimulating articles that educate and inform readers with the latest research findings, driving positive change in healthcare systems and patient care delivery. As a member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed medical publications, JAMA Internal Medicine plays a pivotal role in shaping the discourse and advancing patient care in internal medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书