Summaries for Patients16 July 2002Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Recommendations from the United States Preventive Services Task ForceAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-137-2-200207160-00003 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail What is the United States Preventive Services Task Force?The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is a group of physicians and health care experts that reviews published research and makes recommendations about preventive health care.What is the problem and what is known about it so far?Colorectal cancer is one of the most common types of cancer. Screening prevents colorectal cancer deaths by 1) finding and removing noncancerous outgrowths of the colon or rectum [polyps] before they become cancer and 2) finding cancer at early, curable stages. Available screening tests include fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, ... Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: The summary below is from the full reports titled “Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,” “Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Recommendation and Rationale,” and “Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Adults at Average Risk: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.” They are in the 16 July 2002 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine (volume 137, pages 96-104, 129-131, and 132-141). The first report was written by M Pignone, S Saha, T Hoerger, and J Mandelblatt; the second report was written by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; and the third report was written by M Pignone, M Rich, SM Teutsch, AO Berg, and KN Lohr.Summaries for Patients are a service provided by Annals to help patients better understand the complicated and often mystifying language of modern medicine.Summaries for Patients are presented for informational purposes only. These summaries are not a substitute for advice from your own medical provider. If you have questions about this material, or need medical advice about your own health or situation, please contact your physician. The summaries may be reproduced for not-for-profit educational purposes only. Any other uses must be approved by the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoCost-Effectiveness Analyses of Colorectal Cancer Screening Michael Pignone , Somnath Saha , Tom Hoerger , and Jeanne Mandelblatt Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Recommendation and RationaleScreening for Colorectal Cancer in Adults at Average Risk: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Michael Pignone , Melissa Rich , Steven M. Teutsch , Alfred O. Berg , and Kathleen N. Lohr Metrics Cited byColonoscopy and Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening and SurveillanceTest-positive rate at CT colonography is increased by rectal bleeding and/or unexplained weight loss, unlike other common gastrointestinal symptomsBarriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in Palestine: A National Study in a Medically Underserved Population“ Fault-line of an Earthquake ”: A Qualitative Examination of Barriers and Facilitators to Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural, Eastern North CarolinaPreventive Care in Relation to ObesitySplenic Rupture: An Unusual Complication of ColonoscopyWomen patients' preference for women physicians is a barrier to colon cancer screeningColorectal cancer: screening 16 July 2002Volume 137, Issue 2Page: I-38KeywordsCancer preventionCancer screeningColonColonoscopyColorectal cancerColorectal cancer screeningHealth careHematologic testsRectumSystematic reviews ePublished: 16 July 2002 Issue Published: 16 July 2002 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2002 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2002 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: