Agreement between self-reported and registered colorectal cancer screening: a meta-analysis

Authors

  • D. Dodou PhD,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of BioMechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
    • Correspondence address: Dimitra Dodou, Department of BioMechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD Delft, the Netherlands (e-mail: d.dodou@tudelft.nl).

    Search for more papers by this author
  • J.C.F. de Winter PhD

    1. Department of BioMechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Conflict of interest: None

Abstract

This random-effects meta-analysis investigates the accuracy of self-reported colorectal cancer screening history as a function of screening mode (colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, faecal occult blood testing – FOBT, double-contrast barium enema – DCBE) and survey mode (written, telephone, face-to-face). Summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated. Medical record data were used as reference. We included 23 studies comprising 11 592 subjects. Colonoscopy yielded higher AUC [0.948, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.918, 0.968] than flexible sigmoidoscopy (0.883, 95% CI = 0.849, 0.911) and FOBT (0.869, 95% CI = 0.833, 0.898). Colonoscopy showed the highest sensitivity (0.888, 95% CI = 0.835, 0.931), whereas specificity was comparable between screening modes (ranging from 0.802 for FOBT to 0.904 for DCBE). AUC was not significantly different between survey modes. Prevalence of screening history correlated positively with sensitivity and negatively with specificity, possibly because of errors in the medical records. In conclusion, the accuracy of self-reported cancer screening is generally moderate, and higher for colonoscopy than for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT.

Ancillary