Intensive follow‐up vs less intensive follow‐up: Interval recurrences (IR)
Intensive follow‐up probably leads to lower interval recurrences (recurrence CRC diagnosed between scheduled compared with less intensive follow‐up (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Intensive follow‐up vs less intensive follow‐up Interval recurrences (recurrence CRC diagnosed between scheduled Intensive follow‐up probably leads to lower interval recurrences (recurrence CRC diagnosed between scheduled compared with less intensive follow‐up (moderate certainty). Follow‐up strategies for patients treated for non‐metastatic colorectal cancer (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.59 [0.41, 0.86] | 7 studies · 3933 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Follow‐up strategies for patients treated for non‐metastatic colorectal cancer 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.