Personalized risk messages fail to boost colorectal cancer screening participation

Embargoed for release until 5:00 p.m. ET on Monday 1 September 2025   

Follow @Annalsofim on X, Facebook, Instagram, Bluesky, and Linkedin             
Below please find summaries of new articles that will be published in the next issue of Annals of Internal Medicine. The summaries are not intended to substitute for the full articles as a source of information. This information is under strict embargo and by taking it into possession, media representatives are committing to the terms of the embargo not only on their own behalf, but also on behalf of the organization they represent.   
----------------------------    

1. Personalized risk messages fail to boost colorectal cancer screening participation

Abstract: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-24-03144

URL goes live when the embargo lifts             

A randomized controlled trial aimed to determine whether providing information on patient risk for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) to patients and providers affects colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. The study found no differences in CRC screening uptake for both the personalized provider and patient messages. The findings add to current knowledge around risk messages and CRC screening and require confirmation and extension in subsequent studies, with potential to improve the uptake, effectiveness, and efficiency of CRC screening. The study is published in Annals of Internal Medicine. 

Researchers from Indiana University studied data from 214 providers and 1,084 average risk patients across primary care clinics in two health care systems in the Midwest between November 2020 through May 2023. Eligible patients were aged 50 to 75 years, scheduled to see an enrolled provider within a month, and due for CRC screening. Patients were sent a decision aid about CRC screening that included a personalized message about ACN risk (personalized decision aid) or did not (generic decision aid). Providers were also sent a notification that the patient was due for screening that included a personalized message about the patient’s ACN risk (personalized notification) or did not (generic notification). The primary outcome was completion of any screening test within six months of enrollment, and secondary outcomes were completion of each specific screening test (colonoscopy, stool test, and other approved screening tests) within six months. The researchers found that 39.8% of participants completed CRC screening; however, there were no significant effects of the personalized decision aid or the personalized provider notification on uptake of CRC screening.

Media contacts: For an embargoed PDF, please contact Gabby Macrina at gmacrina@acponline.org. To contact corresponding author Peter H. Schwartz, MD, PhD please email phschwar@iu.edu. 

----------------------------        

2. Report highlights the value of editorial oversight and peer review in clinical trial reporting

Abstract: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-02250

URL goes live when the embargo lifts             

A brief research report evaluated how the quality of abstracts from randomized clinical trial (RCT) reports changes between submission and publication and whether the degree of changes varies according to journal characteristics. The report found that over half of the RCT abstracts examined showed improvement during the peer review and editorial processes, demonstrating the value of editorial oversight. The study is published in Annals of Internal Medicine. 

Researchers from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) analyzed abstracts of 496 RCT reports submitted to NEJM in 2022. Rejected articles were searched for in PubMed to determine publication elsewhere within two years of submission. Of the RCTs submitted, 156 were published in NEJM, and 340 were rejected and published in 128 other journals. To assess changes between submitted and published abstracts, the researchers developed the TPAC scoring tool that evaluates improvements across four key domains: trial design, primary outcome, adverse events, and conclusion. They found that 59% of abstracts improved between submission and publication, with conclusions being the most frequently modified domain. Abstracts were more frequently improved in the general medical journals with the highest impact factors. The results support the value of editorial oversight in ensuring research is communicated with accuracy and integrity.

Media contacts: For an embargoed PDF, please contact Gabby Macrina at gmacrina@acponline.org. To contact corresponding author Christos P. Kotanidis, MD, DPhil please email christos.kotanidis@cardiov.ox.ac.uk.

----------------------------    

Also new this issue:

The Role of Medical Experts in Transgender Legal Advocacy: A Historical Perspective on Kantaras v. Kantaras

Jason Lee, BA and Jacob D. Moses, PhD

History of Medicine

Abstract: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00922

On a Slow Boat to Publication: Rethinking How We Disseminate Medical Research

Kieran L. Quinn, MD, PhD; Christopher M. Booth, MD; Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS; and Allan S. Detsky, MD, PhD, CM

Ideas and Opinions

Abstract: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-02311

Editorial: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-03114