Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 31, 2026

Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery
Published on: September 27, 2024
Potential Biases Introduced by Conflating Screening and Diagnostic Testing in Colorectal Cancer Screening
Elizabeth A Becker1, Derek M Griffith2, Brady T West3
1Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. eabecker@uic.edu.
Background:
Screening and postsymptomatic diagnostic testing are often conflated in cancer screening surveillance research. We examined the error in estimated colorectal cancer screening prevalence due to the conflation of screening and diagnostic testing.
Methods:
Using data from the 2008 National Health Interview Survey, we compared weighted prevalence estimates of the use of all testing (screening and diagnostic) and screening in at-risk adults and calculated the overestimation of screening prevalence across sociodemographic groups.
Results:
The population screening prevalence was overestimated by 23.3%, and the level of overestimation varied widely across sociodemographic groups (median, 22.6%; mean, 24.8%). The highest levels of overestimation were in non-Hispanic white females (27.4%), adults ages 50-54 years (32.0%), and those with the highest socioeconomic vulnerability [low educational attainment (31.3%), low poverty ratio (32.5%), no usual source of health care (54.4%), and not insured (51.6%); all P < 0.001].
Conclusions:
When the impetus for testing was not included, colorectal cancer screening prevalence was overestimated, and patterns of overestimation often aligned with social and economic vulnerability. These results are of concern to researchers who use survey data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to assess cancer screening behaviors, as it is currently not designed to distinguish diagnostic testing from screening.
Impact:
Surveillance research in cancer screening that does not consider the impetus for testing risks measurement error of screening prevalence, impeding progress toward improving population health. Ultimately, to craft relevant screening benchmarks and interventions, we must look beyond "what" and "when" and include "why."
Related Concept Videos
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Confirmation Biases
Censoring Survival Data

