Skip to main content

Table 2 Association between screening colonoscopy and risk of incident late-stage CRC according to data source, SEARCH Study 2006–2008, n = 1,039

From: Approaches for classifying the indications for colonoscopy using detailed clinical data

Data source according to screening definition used Odds Ratio and 95% CI % Difference in beta coefficients P-value of difference*
Screening defined as ‘probable’ or ‘definite’    
  Progress note 0.31 (0.14-0.70) −9.5 0.64
  Referral note 0.46 (0.22-0.98) 28.0 0.41
  Procedure report 0.50 (0.25-1.02) 31.2 0.26
  All sources combined 0.30 (0.14-0.65) −21.6 0.52
  Adjudicated indication 0.36 (0.19-0.68) Ref Ref
Same definition as above plus ‘high-risk’ screening exposures    
  Progress note 0.32 (0.17-0.64) 2.4 0.98
  Referral note 0.45 (0.23-0.85) 34.9 0.12
  Procedure report 0.43 (0.23-0.79) 27.4 0.23
  All sources combined 0.31 (0.16-0.58) −6.2 0.69
  Adjudicated indication 0.33 (0.17-0.62) Ref Ref
  1. Conditional logistic regression modelling was performed with separate indicator variables for colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy and adjusted for receipt of ‘definite’ screening barium enema and FOBT, census block-group poverty levels (as a continuous variable), number of preventive health care visits, family history of colorectal cancer, and comorbidity index at baseline. Missing values of poverty level were imputed using predictive mean matching.
  2. *Two-sided Wald Chi-square (χ 2) P-values of the difference between effect sizes.