% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Peng:141292,
      author       = {L. Peng$^*$ and K. Weigl$^*$ and D. Boakye$^*$ and H.
                      Brenner$^*$},
      title        = {{R}isk {S}cores for {P}redicting {A}dvanced {C}olorectal
                      {N}eoplasia in the {A}verage-risk {P}opulation: {A}
                      {S}ystematic {R}eview and {M}eta-analysis.},
      journal      = {The American journal of gastroenterology},
      volume       = {113},
      number       = {12},
      issn         = {1572-0241},
      address      = {London [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Nature},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2018-01812},
      pages        = {1788-1800},
      year         = {2018},
      note         = {2018 Dec;113(12):1788-1800},
      abstract     = {A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to
                      summarize the available evidence on risk scores for
                      predicting advanced colorectal neoplasia (advanced adenomas
                      and cancer) in average-risk and asymptomatic populations
                      undergoing screening colonoscopy.PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of
                      Science databases were searched up to 28 March 2018. Studies
                      that developed or validated a risk score to predict the risk
                      of advanced colorectal neoplasia were included. Two
                      reviewers independently extracted study characteristics
                      including diagnostic performance indicators and assessed
                      risk of bias and applicability in the included studies.
                      Meta-analyses were conducted to determine the overall
                      discrimination of risk scores evaluated by more than 1
                      study.A total of 22 studies including 17 original risk
                      scores were identified. Risk scores included a median number
                      of 5 risk factors. Factors most commonly included were age,
                      sex, family history in first-degree relatives, body mass
                      index and smoking. The area under the receiver operating
                      characteristic curve of risk scores ranged from 0.62 to 0.77
                      in the individual studies and from 0.61 to 0.70 in the
                      meta-analyses.Although the majority of available risk scores
                      had relatively weak discriminatory power, they may be of
                      some use for risk stratification in CRC screening. Rather
                      than developing more risk scores based on environmental risk
                      factors, future research should focus on exploring
                      possibilities of enhancing predictive power by combining
                      risk factor data with novel laboratory matters, such as
                      polygenetic risk scores.},
      subtyp        = {Review Article},
      cin          = {C070 / G110 / L101},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C070-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)G110-20160331 /
                      I:(DE-He78)L101-20160331},
      pnm          = {313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:30315282},
      doi          = {10.1038/s41395-018-0209-2},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/141292},
}