Syed Soffian Sharifah Saffinas, Mohammed Nawi Azmawati, Hod Rozita, Abdul Manaf Mohd Rizal, Chan Huan-Keat, Abu Hassan Muhammad Radzi
Department of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 56000, Malaysia.
Clinical Research Center, Sultanah Bahiyah Hospital, Alor Setar, 05400, Kedah, Malaysia.
Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2022 May 13;15:1025-1043. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S359450. eCollection 2022.
Regardless of the high global burden of colorectal cancer (CRC), the uptake of CRC screening varies across countries. This systematic review aimed to provide a picture of the disparities in recommendations for CRC screening in average-risk individuals using an ecobiosocial approach. It was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The literature search was conducted through Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and EBSCOHost. Full-text guidelines which were published between 2011 and 2021, along with guidelines which provided recommendations on CRC screening in average-risk individuals, were included in the review. However, guidelines focusing only on a single screening modality were excluded. Fourteen guidelines fulfilling the eligibility criteria were retained for the final review and analysis. Quality assessment of each guideline was performed using the AGREE II instrument. Disparities in guidelines identified in this review were classified into ecological (screening modalities and strategies), biological (recommended age, gender and ethnicities), and social (smoking history, socioeconomic status, and behavior) factors. In general, unstandardized practices in CRC screening for average-risk individuals are likely attributable to the inconsistent and non-specific recommendations in the literature. This review calls on stakeholders and policymakers to review the existing colorectal cancer screening practices and pursue standardization.
尽管全球结直肠癌(CRC)负担沉重,但各国CRC筛查的普及情况各不相同。本系统评价旨在采用生态生物社会学方法,呈现平均风险个体CRC筛查建议中的差异情况。该评价按照系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行报告。通过Scopus、科学网、PubMed和EBSCOHost进行文献检索。纳入评价的是2011年至2021年期间发表的全文指南,以及提供平均风险个体CRC筛查建议的指南。然而,仅关注单一筛查方式的指南被排除。最终保留了14项符合纳入标准的指南进行审查和分析。使用AGREE II工具对每项指南进行质量评估。本评价中确定的指南差异分为生态因素(筛查方式和策略)、生物因素(推荐年龄、性别和种族)和社会因素(吸烟史、社会经济地位和行为)。总体而言,平均风险个体CRC筛查中做法不规范,可能归因于文献中建议不一致且不具体。本评价呼吁利益相关者和政策制定者审查现有的结直肠癌筛查做法并推行标准化。