Literature DB >> 35833158

Awareness and Knowledge of Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Medical Students at the University of Aleppo: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Obada Zayegh1, Zina Shikh Hmidi2, Ahmad A Nawlo2, Ahmad Al-Mouakeh2, Basel Amin3, Bassel Banjah2, Anwar Chammout4, Muhammad Alsayid5.   

Abstract

Background  Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of malignancy in Syria. The aim of our study was to assess the awareness and knowledge of CRC and its screening methods among medical students at the University of Aleppo. Methods  A cross-sectional study of medical students at the University of Aleppo was conducted using a self-administered 12-element questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of demographics, awareness of CRC, knowledge of CRC and its screening methods. Awareness of CRC included three questions asking students if they ever heard of CRC and its screening methods. Knowledge of CRC was evaluated through three sets of questions about CRC risk factors, signs and symptoms, and preventative methods. The students were selected randomly during academic lectures. A χ 2 or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables were used for statistical analysis, as appropriate. A two-sided p  < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. We stratified students based on pre-clinical versus clinical years and average academic score. Results  A total of 824 students completed the questionnaire. The majority of students were aware of CRC (98.9%) and CRC screening methods (79.8%). Students had poor knowledge of CRC risk factors (16.5% for non-modifiable factors and 11.7% for modifiable factors), signs and symptoms (52.6%), and protective factors (9.9%). Only 31.7% of students were able to identify the appropriate age to initiate screening for average-risk individuals. Clinical students had better awareness and knowledge of CRC and its screening methods. Clinical students with higher academic score showed better awareness and knowledge in some elements. Conclusion  Our study reported high awareness and poor knowledge rates of CRC and its screening methods among medical students at the University of Aleppo. Although clinical students had higher awareness and knowledge of CRC compared to pre-clinical students, the impact of academic score revealed variable results. Syrian American Medical Society. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Syria; awareness; colorectal cancer; knowledge; medical students; screening

Year:  2022        PMID: 35833158      PMCID: PMC9272450          DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748810

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Avicenna J Med        ISSN: 2231-0770


Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second cancer-related cause of death worldwide following lung cancer. 1 Although Western countries have the highest incidence of CRC, an upward trend in the incidence has been described in the Middle East, especially in the Eastern Mediterranean coast countries. 2 3 In Syria, CRC was the third-most occurring malignancy with 1,890 new cases in 2018 and 1,248 deaths in the same year. 4 5 CRC screening aims to detect early-stage cancers and precancerous lesions in apparently healthy individuals, which may lead to a reduction in CRC incidence and mortality. 6 7 Although the guidelines of CRC screening vary between countries and regions, the majority of professional societies recommend colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), computed tomography (CT) colonography, FIT-fecal DNA, and flexible sigmoidoscopy as acceptable screening tools. 7 8 9 Several studies from the Middle East reported low rates of CRC awareness among populations. 10 11 Nonetheless, these studies reported high rates of positive attitude toward screening. Better knowledge was associated with employment, high education, and high income. 12 In addition, adherence to regular checkups and family physician visits aided in raising the willing to undergo screening. 13 Healthcare workers' awareness and knowledge of CRC and its screening methods are the mainstay of CRC early detection, especially in countries that lack national screening programs. 14 With proper knowledge of screening, physicians can improve patients' compliance and alter their perceptions of the anticipated barriers and benefits. 15 Patients who receive CRC screening recommendations from their physicians have a higher chance to be up-to-date in CRC screening than patients who do not. 16 Doctors who have ample experience performed better in higher risk CRC settings. 17 Therefore, the World Health Organization (WHO) indicated that raising the level of medical staff awareness in this area is an important element of their adopted cancer control strategy. 2 14 The lack of national CRC screening programs in Syria is a major health problem that require further evaluation with research studies. Data are scarce regarding the awareness and knowledge of CRC among people and healthcare workers in Syria. The aim of our study was to assess the awareness and knowledge of CRC and its screening methods among medical students at the University of Aleppo.

Methods

Study Design

We conducted a cross-sectional study of medical students at the University of Aleppo–Faculty of Medicine during the second semester of the academic year 2018–2019. The medical school at the University of Aleppo consists of one preparatory, two pre-clinical, and three clinical years. We included students only from the pre-clinical and clinical years because the preparatory year is a bridge to medical, dentistry, and pharmacy schools. We approached students during practical sessions to ensure that participants meet the eligibility criteria. Our selection method was completely random and students were approached during different dates and times of the week. We collected responses from students over a 1-month period. Students who were interested in the study received a 12-item questionnaire in a paper format and all responses were collected. All participants completed a written informed consent forms. We included all participants in the study and did not exclude any students. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee at the University of Aleppo.

Questionnaire and Data Collection

There were 12 elements of the questionnaire in addition to questions about gender, class, and self-reported average academic score. The questionnaire was developed based on literature review and clinical knowledge of the research team. The questionnaire consisted of three main categories, awareness of CRC, knowledge of CRC, and knowledge of CRC screening. A final question regarding the potential of a student to recommend screening to family members and friend was subsequently added. Each of the three main categories consisted of multiple-choice questions and statements with three possible answers. Students responded to statements with (Yes), (No), or (I do not know) to eliminate random selection of correct answers. Awareness of CRC included three questions asking students if they ever heard of CRC, its screening methods, and the correct definition of the screening. Knowledge of CRC was evaluated through three sets of questions about CRC risk factors, signs and symptoms, and preventative methods. Knowledge of CRC screening methods was assessed through five sets of questions regarding the type of screening methods, appropriate age to initiate screening in average-risk individuals, and the outcomes of screening. Risk factors of CRC were divided into modifiable (e.g., obesity, red meat consumption, tobacco, and alcohol) and non-modifiable factors (e.g., age, sex, race, genetic factors, related syndromes). We also asked students about their perceptions of the barriers to CRC screening in the region. The questionnaire was administered in Arabic because Arabic is the official language in Syria and all medical subjects at the University of Aleppo–Faculty of Medicine are taught in Arabic. The structure of the questionnaire was built based on literature review and current knowledge of CRC and its screening methods. The questionnaire was distributed in a paper format and all responses were collected by the research team. A copy of the survey is included in Appendix A with an English translation.

Statistical Analysis

We reported data as frequencies and rates and performed univariate analysis using χ 2 or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables, as appropriate. The primary outcome of the study was the knowledge of CRC screening methods among medical students. The secondary outcomes were awareness of CRC, knowledge of CRC, and students' perceptions of barriers to CRC screening in the region. We divided medical students into pre-clinical and clinical groups. The pre-clinical group consisted of second- and third-year students and the clinical group consisted of fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-year students. We evaluated the difference in awareness and knowledge of CRC and its screening methods among both groups. In addition, we stratified clinical students based on their average academic scores into high-score group (80% and higher) and low-score group (below 80%). A two-sided p  < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data were entered in a Microsoft Excel (Redmond, Washington, USA) document by the research team members. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA/IC (version 14.2; StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Characteristics of Students

A total of 824 medical students completed the questionnaire that comprised 76.4% of the invited students. The majority of students were female (52.4%) and had an average academic score of 80% and higher (55.9%). Two-thirds of the students were in the clinical years, while one-third were in the pre-clinical years ( Table 1 ).
Table 1

Characteristics of medical students

Percentage ( n )
Total100 (824)
Gender *
 Female52.4 (430)
 Male47.6 (390)
Class
 Second17.3 (142)
 Third15.8 (130)
 Fourth26.7 (219)
 Fifth20.8 (171)
 Sixth19.4 (159)
Average score
 60%–69%1.5 (12)
 70%–79%42.7 (345)
 80%–89%48.8 (394)
 90%–100%7.1 (57)

Four cases preferred not to report their gender.

Four cases preferred not to report their gender.

Awareness of Colorectal Cancer

The majority of students were aware of CRC (98.9%) and CRC screening methods (79.8%). However, only 38.9% of students defined screening correctly ( Table 2 ). In comparison to pre-clinical students, clinical students were more aware of CRC (100% vs. 96.7%; p  < 0.001) and CRC screening methods (94.8% vs. 49.4%; p  < 0.001). Only half of clinical students compared to 18.7% of pre-clinical students defined screening correctly ( p  < 0.001). Among clinical years, students with higher academic scores were significantly more aware of screening definition than students with lower academic scores (58.7% vs. 39.5%; p  < 0.001) ( Supplementary Table S1, available online only ).
Table 2

Awareness of colorectal cancer and screening methods

Total % ( n ) Pre-clinical % ( n ) Clinical % ( n ) p -Value
Awareness of CRC98.9 (812)96.7 (261)100 (548)< 0.001
Awareness of CRC screening methods79.8 (647)49.4 (131)94.8 (515)< 0.001
Awareness of screening definition38.9 (315)18.7 (50)49.0 (264)< 0.001

Abbreviation: CRC, colorectal cancer.

Abbreviation: CRC, colorectal cancer.

Knowledge of Colorectal Cancer

We evaluated students' knowledge of CRC in three categories: risk factors (modifiable, and non-modifiable), signs and symptoms, and protective factors. Students who were able to identify all elements of each category were considered knowledgeable of that category. Overall, non-modifiable and modifiable risk factors were identified by 16.5% and 11.5% of students, where clinical students were more knowledgeable than pre-clinical students ( p  < 0.001). Clinical students were more knowledgeable than pre-clinical students in regard to signs and symptoms (70.6% vs. 16.1%; p  < 0.001) and protective factors of CRC (14.3% vs. 1.1%; p  < 0.001) ( Table 3 ). Compared to clinical students with lower academic scores, clinical students with higher academic scores could identify signs and symptoms, and protective factors significantly higher (74.6% vs. 66.7%; p  = 0.04) (19.1% vs. 9.9%; p  = 0.002) respectively ( Supplementary Table S2, available online only ).
Table 3

Knowledge of colorectal cancer

Total % ( n ) Pre-clinical % ( n ) Clinical % ( n ) p -Value
Risk factors
 Nonmodifiable16.5 (133)0 (0)24.7 (133)< 0.001
 Modifiable11.7 (94)4.9 (13)15.0 (81)< 0.001
Signs and symptoms52.6 (425)16.1 (43)70.6 (382)< 0.001
Protective factors9.9 (81)1.1 (3)14.3 (78)< 0.001

Knowledge of Colorectal Cancer Screening Methods

Nearly one-third of clinical students and one-quarter of pre-clinical students identified the appropriate age to initiate screening in the average-risk population. The majority of clinical students identified fecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy as CRC screening tools. However, 55.2% of students identified CT colonography as a CRC screening tool ( Table 4 ). Interestingly, more preclinical students than clinical students believed that CRC screening decreases the incidence of CRC (65.2% vs. 55.2%; p = 0.02). The majority of students in both groups (87.6%) believed that CRC screening decreases the mortality of CRC. Two-thirds of clinical students and 47.6% of pre-clinical students believed that CRC is a preventable disease ( p  < 0.001). In clinical students, there was a significant difference in identifying methods of screening between student with higher academic scores and students with lower academic scores except for FOBT ( Supplementary Table S3, available online only ).
Table 4

Knowledge of colorectal cancer screening methods

Total % ( n ) Pre-clinical % ( n ) Clinical % ( n ) p -Value
CRC screening decreases the incidence of CRC58.5 (478)65.2 (176)55.2 (302)0.02
CRC screening decreases the mortality of CRC87.6 (716)81.5 (220)90.7 (496)0.001
CRC is a preventable disease60.2 (489)47.6 (128)66.4 (361)< 0.001
Knowledge of appropriate age to begin screening*31.7 (260)25.7 (69)34.4 (189)0.01
Screening methods
 Fecal occult blood test79.0 (644)59.9 (161)88.5 (483)< 0.001
 CT colonography55.2 (444)48.1 (129)58.8 (315)< 0.001
 Colonoscopy89.4 (726)83.6 (224)92.3 (502)< 0.001
 Flexible sigmoidoscopy84.3 (685)75.8 (203)88.4 (482)< 0.001

Abbreviations: CRC, colorectal cancer; CT, computerized tomography.

*In average-risk population.

Abbreviations: CRC, colorectal cancer; CT, computerized tomography. *In average-risk population.

Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Region

The majority of students believed that the lack of awareness (92.3%), lack of national screening programs (89.6%), and inadequate medical technology and support of screening programs (79.0%) are the main barriers to CRC screening in Aleppo, Syria ( Table 5 ). About 10% of students believed that CRC screening is not necessary.
Table 5

Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in Aleppo, Syria

Percentage ( n )
Lack of awareness among people92.3 (755)
Lack of national screening program89.6 (724)
Inadequate medical technology and support of screening programs79.0 (645)
Religious reasons17.3 (141)
Lack of awareness among physicians15.9 (130)
Distrust in western technology15.3 (125)
No need for screening9.7 (79)

Recommending Screening by Medical Students

In total, over 90% of students were willing to recommend CRC screening to family and friends. Some factors were noticed to have a significant association with higher tendency toward this attitude. More female students (95%) were found to recommend screening than males (89.7%) ( p  < 0.01). In addition, advancement in academic years played a positive role in recommending screening, with 88.1% of recommendation rate among second-year students in comparison with 95.5% in fifth-year students, other academic years' students' rates fell in between ( p  = 0.04). Academic performance was also a significant factor, students with the highest average were all willing to recommend screening to friends and family, while the lowest were more hesitant with only 72.7% of recommendation rate ( p  < 0.01) ( Table 6 ).
Table 6

Association between recommending CRCS to family members and friends by students and other factors

Recommend CRCS to family members and friends
YesNop -Value
Total742 (92.5)60 (7.5)
Gender< 0.01
 Female398 (95.0)21 (5.0)
 Male341 (89.7)39 (10.3)
Class0.04
 Second118 (88.1)16 (11.9)
 Third111 (88.8)14 (11.2)
 Fourth205 (94.0)13(6.0)
 Fifth157 (94.0)10 (6.0)
 Sixth148 (95.5)7 (4.5)
Average score< 0.01
 60%–69%8 (72.7)3 (27.3)
 70%–79%313 (93.4)22 (6.6)
 80%–89%354 (91.9)31 (8.1)
 90%–100%56 (100)0

Note: Total is different because some students did not answer this question.

Note: Total is different because some students did not answer this question.

Discussion

In our study, we evaluated the awareness and knowledge of CRC and its screening methods among medical students. Although the majority of students were aware of CRC and its screening methods, they demonstrated poor knowledge of CRC risk factors, signs and symptoms, and protective factors. Clinical students had better knowledge of CRC than pre-clinical students, which can be explained partially by exposure to clinical subjects and experience. Our study revealed that only 52.6% of students recognized the signs and symptoms of CRC, while their knowledge of CRC risk factors and protective factors ranged between 9.9% and 16.5%. These rates were consistent with the rates reported by other studies in the Middle East region. 18 19 20 21 22 Medical students are the future physicians who will care for patients, so their awareness and knowledge of CRC screening are an utmost priority, especially considering that CRC is a preventable disease. CRC signs and symptoms were recognized by 70.6% of clinical students, however their knowledge of modifiable CRC risk factors was poor (15%). Recognizing modifiable risk factors by medical students allow them to counsel their patients and prevent CRC. Similarly, their knowledge of protective factors was poor; therefore, they may not be able to provide their patients with information about preventing CRC. Our study did not include medical residents and physicians, but the poor knowledge of medical students in clinical years is concerning because there is a large knowledge gap that needs to be filled. Furthermore, only one-third of students in clinical years identified appropriate age to initiate CRC screening in average-risk individuals. Their poor knowledge can affect their clinical performance in counseling patients regarding CRC screening. 17 Students with high academic score had better knowledge of screening definition, signs and symptoms, and protective factors of CRC compared to students with low academic scores ( Supplementary Tables S1-S3, available online only ). Although our study did not adjust for other confounders, the medical curriculum probably has an impact on students' clinical knowledge. In contrast, students with low academic scores had better knowledge of CRC screening methods compared to students with high academic scores. The lack of information about CRC screening methods in the medical curriculum could be a contributing factor to these results. Further evaluation of the medical curriculum is needed to identify knowledge gaps in CRC screening and fill them based on current guidelines. CRC is the third-most common cancer in Syria; nonetheless, there are no national CRC screening programs, which is one of the main CRC screening barriers identified by the students. There were historic successful government-led campaigns about smoking cessation and polio vaccination with significant impact. 23 24 There is a need for a national CRC screening program that increases awareness among Syrians, educates medical care providers, and establishes screening centers in government-based clinics and hospitals. Another main CRC screening barrier perceived by the students was the lack of awareness among people, which can be improved through national educational campaigns. Our study shed some light on the poor CRC knowledge among medical students and identified the weaknesses in their knowledge. These findings will help us improve the curriculum at the University of Aleppo–Faculty of Medicine and set an example for other universities in Syria to follow. Further studies are needed to evaluate CRC knowledge of residents and practicing physicians in Syria, which can guide future national campaigns. Based on the results of this study, we recommend reviewing and revising the curriculum at the University of Aleppo–Faculty of Medicine to include information about CRC and its screening methods. In addition, assessing students' knowledge about CRC and its screening methods in graduation examination (i.e., National Standardized Medical Examination) would be helpful to emphasize this topic. We also recommend establishing a cancer screening center at the Aleppo University Hospital to provide CRC screening to the public. Several studies revealed that population-based CRC screening programs are effective in decreasing the incidence and mortality of CRC. 6 Therefore, establishing a national screening campaign is essential to decrease morbidity and mortality of CRC in Syria. The majority of students were willing to recommend CRC screening to their family and friends, which reflects a positive attitude toward CRC screening. However, we should aspire to full screening commitment in our future physicians, especially that screening has been recommended by many societies with proven benefits. Students in clinical or advanced years are typically more exposed to clinical knowledge and perhaps some literature and societies' recommendations; therefore, it is expected to observe better attitude in supporting screening and recommending good screening behavior to family members or friends. There are several limitations of our study. Inherited limitations of cross-sectional studies that affected our study included recall bias, selection bias, and the presence of confounders. Our study relied primarily on students' memories to answer the questionnaire; therefore, recall bias could affect the results. However, our study had a large sample size, which may mitigate the effect of this bias. In addition, we did not collect information about socioeconomic status, personal and family history of CRC, and living situation if the person lives with family, friends, or alone. As a cross-sectional study, we cannot conclude causalities and strong associations; however, our study provided essential descriptive data that can be used for future interventions regarding CRC screening in Syria.

Conclusion

Our study reported high awareness and poor knowledge rates of CRC and its screening methods among medical students at the University of Aleppo. Although clinical students had higher awareness and knowledge of CRC compared to pre-clinical students, the impact of academic score revealed variable results. In addition, we identified the perceived barriers of colorectal cancer screening in Syria among medical students.
  17 in total

1.  Knowledge and Awareness of Colorectal Cancer Early Warning Signs and Risk Factors among University Students in Jordan.

Authors:  Nizar M Mhaidat; Belal A Al-Husein; Karem H Alzoubi; Dima I Hatamleh; Youcef Khader; Sinaa Matalqah; Abla Albsoul
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.037

Review 2.  Colorectal Cancer in the Arab World--Screening Practices and Future Prospects.

Authors:  Mostafa A Arafa; Karim Farhat
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2015

3.  Building Evidence-Based Tobacco Treatment in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: Lessons Learned by the Syrian Center for Tobacco Studies.

Authors:  Taghrid Asfar; Kenneth D Ward; Radwan Al-Ali; Wasim Maziak
Journal:  J Smok Cessat       Date:  2016-03-14

4.  The relationship between medical students' knowledge, confidence, experience, and skills related to colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Karen E Hauer; Luann Wilkerson; Arianne Teherani
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.037

5.  Knowledge and Awareness of Colorectal Cancer among Undergraduate Students at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: a Survey-Based Study.

Authors:  Muhammad Imran; Zaid Sayedalamin; Salhah S Alsulami; Magdi Atta; Mukhtiar Baig
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2016

6.  Factors influencing colorectal cancer screening participation.

Authors:  Antonio Z Gimeno García
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 2.260

7.  Knowledge, attitude, and perceived barriers regarding colorectal cancer screening practices and risk factors among medical students in Saudi Arabia.

Authors:  Asma Althobaiti; Hoda Jradi
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 3.263

8.  Awareness of Colorectal Cancer and Attitudes Towards Its Screening Guidelines in Lebanon.

Authors:  Mohamad Ali Tfaily; Dana Naamani; Alaa Kassir; Sara Sleiman; Mamadou Ouattara; Munir Paul Moacdieh; Miran A Jaffa
Journal:  Ann Glob Health       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 2.462

9.  Effects of Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening on Cancer Incidence and Mortality in a Large Community-Based Population.

Authors:  Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley; Christopher D Jensen; Joanne E Schottinger; Virginia P Quinn; Ann G Zauber; Jeffrey K Lee; Wei K Zhao; Natalia Udaltsova; Nirupa R Ghai; Alexander T Lee; Charles P Quesenberry; Bruce H Fireman; Chyke A Doubeni
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Global, Regional, and National Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life-Years for 29 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2017: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study.

Authors:  Christina Fitzmaurice; Degu Abate; Naghmeh Abbasi; Hedayat Abbastabar; Foad Abd-Allah; Omar Abdel-Rahman; Ahmed Abdelalim; Amir Abdoli; Ibrahim Abdollahpour; Abdishakur S M Abdulle; Nebiyu Dereje Abebe; Haftom Niguse Abraha; Laith Jamal Abu-Raddad; Ahmed Abualhasan; Isaac Akinkunmi Adedeji; Shailesh M Advani; Mohsen Afarideh; Mahdi Afshari; Mohammad Aghaali; Dominic Agius; Sutapa Agrawal; Ayat Ahmadi; Elham Ahmadian; Ehsan Ahmadpour; Muktar Beshir Ahmed; Mohammad Esmaeil Akbari; Tomi Akinyemiju; Ziyad Al-Aly; Assim M AlAbdulKader; Fares Alahdab; Tahiya Alam; Genet Melak Alamene; Birhan Tamene T Alemnew; Kefyalew Addis Alene; Cyrus Alinia; Vahid Alipour; Syed Mohamed Aljunid; Fatemeh Allah Bakeshei; Majid Abdulrahman Hamad Almadi; Amir Almasi-Hashiani; Ubai Alsharif; Shirina Alsowaidi; Nelson Alvis-Guzman; Erfan Amini; Saeed Amini; Yaw Ampem Amoako; Zohreh Anbari; Nahla Hamed Anber; Catalina Liliana Andrei; Mina Anjomshoa; Fereshteh Ansari; Ansariadi Ansariadi; Seth Christopher Yaw Appiah; Morteza Arab-Zozani; Jalal Arabloo; Zohreh Arefi; Olatunde Aremu; Habtamu Abera Areri; Al Artaman; Hamid Asayesh; Ephrem Tsegay Asfaw; Alebachew Fasil Ashagre; Reza Assadi; Bahar Ataeinia; Hagos Tasew Atalay; Zerihun Ataro; Suleman Atique; Marcel Ausloos; Leticia Avila-Burgos; Euripide F G A Avokpaho; Ashish Awasthi; Nefsu Awoke; Beatriz Paulina Ayala Quintanilla; Martin Amogre Ayanore; Henok Tadesse Ayele; Ebrahim Babaee; Umar Bacha; Alaa Badawi; Mojtaba Bagherzadeh; Eleni Bagli; Senthilkumar Balakrishnan; Abbas Balouchi; Till Winfried Bärnighausen; Robert J Battista; Masoud Behzadifar; Meysam Behzadifar; Bayu Begashaw Bekele; Yared Belete Belay; Yaschilal Muche Belayneh; Kathleen Kim Sachiko Berfield; Adugnaw Berhane; Eduardo Bernabe; Mircea Beuran; Nickhill Bhakta; Krittika Bhattacharyya; Belete Biadgo; Ali Bijani; Muhammad Shahdaat Bin Sayeed; Charles Birungi; Catherine Bisignano; Helen Bitew; Tone Bjørge; Archie Bleyer; Kassawmar Angaw Bogale; Hunduma Amensisa Bojia; Antonio M Borzì; Cristina Bosetti; Ibrahim R Bou-Orm; Hermann Brenner; Jerry D Brewer; Andrey Nikolaevich Briko; Nikolay Ivanovich Briko; Maria Teresa Bustamante-Teixeira; Zahid A Butt; Giulia Carreras; Juan J Carrero; Félix Carvalho; Clara Castro; Franz Castro; Ferrán Catalá-López; Ester Cerin; Yazan Chaiah; Wagaye Fentahun Chanie; Vijay Kumar Chattu; Pankaj Chaturvedi; Neelima Singh Chauhan; Mohammad Chehrazi; Peggy Pei-Chia Chiang; Tesfaye Yitna Chichiabellu; Onyema Greg Chido-Amajuoyi; Odgerel Chimed-Ochir; Jee-Young J Choi; Devasahayam J Christopher; Dinh-Toi Chu; Maria-Magdalena Constantin; Vera M Costa; Emanuele Crocetti; Christopher Stephen Crowe; Maria Paula Curado; Saad M A Dahlawi; Giovanni Damiani; Amira Hamed Darwish; Ahmad Daryani; José das Neves; Feleke Mekonnen Demeke; Asmamaw Bizuneh Demis; Birhanu Wondimeneh Demissie; Gebre Teklemariam Demoz; Edgar Denova-Gutiérrez; Afshin Derakhshani; Kalkidan Solomon Deribe; Rupak Desai; Beruk Berhanu Desalegn; Melaku Desta; Subhojit Dey; Samath Dhamminda Dharmaratne; Meghnath Dhimal; Daniel Diaz; Mesfin Tadese Tadese Dinberu; Shirin Djalalinia; David Teye Doku; Thomas M Drake; Manisha Dubey; Eleonora Dubljanin; Eyasu Ejeta Duken; Hedyeh Ebrahimi; Andem Effiong; Aziz Eftekhari; Iman El Sayed; Maysaa El Sayed Zaki; Shaimaa I El-Jaafary; Ziad El-Khatib; Demelash Abewa Elemineh; Hajer Elkout; Richard G Ellenbogen; Aisha Elsharkawy; Mohammad Hassan Emamian; Daniel Adane Endalew; Aman Yesuf Endries; Babak Eshrati; Ibtihal Fadhil; Vahid Fallah Omrani; Mahbobeh Faramarzi; Mahdieh Abbasalizad Farhangi; Andrea Farioli; Farshad Farzadfar; Netsanet Fentahun; Eduarda Fernandes; Garumma Tolu Feyissa; Irina Filip; Florian Fischer; James L Fisher; Lisa M Force; Masoud Foroutan; Marisa Freitas; Takeshi Fukumoto; Neal D Futran; Silvano Gallus; Fortune Gbetoho Gankpe; Reta Tsegaye Gayesa; Tsegaye Tewelde Gebrehiwot; Gebreamlak Gebremedhn Gebremeskel; Getnet Azeze Gedefaw; Belayneh K Gelaw; Birhanu Geta; Sefonias Getachew; Kebede Embaye Gezae; Mansour Ghafourifard; Alireza Ghajar; Ahmad Ghashghaee; Asadollah Gholamian; Paramjit Singh Gill; Themba T G Ginindza; Alem Girmay; Muluken Gizaw; Ricardo Santiago Gomez; Sameer Vali Gopalani; Giuseppe Gorini; Bárbara Niegia Garcia Goulart; Ayman Grada; Maximiliano Ribeiro Guerra; Andre Luiz Sena Guimaraes; Prakash C Gupta; Rahul Gupta; Kishor Hadkhale; Arvin Haj-Mirzaian; Arya Haj-Mirzaian; Randah R Hamadeh; Samer Hamidi; Lolemo Kelbiso Hanfore; Josep Maria Haro; Milad Hasankhani; Amir Hasanzadeh; Hamid Yimam Hassen; Roderick J Hay; Simon I Hay; Andualem Henok; Nathaniel J Henry; Claudiu Herteliu; Hagos D Hidru; Chi Linh Hoang; Michael K Hole; Praveen Hoogar; Nobuyuki Horita; H Dean Hosgood; Mostafa Hosseini; Mehdi Hosseinzadeh; Mihaela Hostiuc; Sorin Hostiuc; Mowafa Househ; Mohammedaman Mama Hussen; Bogdan Ileanu; Milena D Ilic; Kaire Innos; Seyed Sina Naghibi Irvani; Kufre Robert Iseh; Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam; Farhad Islami; Nader Jafari Balalami; Morteza Jafarinia; Leila Jahangiry; Mohammad Ali Jahani; Nader Jahanmehr; Mihajlo Jakovljevic; Spencer L James; Mehdi Javanbakht; Sudha Jayaraman; Sun Ha Jee; Ensiyeh Jenabi; Ravi Prakash Jha; Jost B Jonas; Jitendra Jonnagaddala; Tamas Joo; Suresh Banayya Jungari; Mikk Jürisson; Ali Kabir; Farin Kamangar; André Karch; Narges Karimi; Ansar Karimian; Amir Kasaeian; Gebremicheal Gebreslassie Kasahun; Belete Kassa; Tesfaye Dessale Kassa; Mesfin Wudu Kassaw; Anil Kaul; Peter Njenga Keiyoro; Abraham Getachew Kelbore; Amene Abebe Kerbo; Yousef Saleh Khader; Maryam Khalilarjmandi; Ejaz Ahmad Khan; Gulfaraz Khan; Young-Ho Khang; Khaled Khatab; Amir Khater; Maryam Khayamzadeh; Maryam Khazaee-Pool; Salman Khazaei; Abdullah T Khoja; Mohammad Hossein Khosravi; Jagdish Khubchandani; Neda Kianipour; Daniel Kim; Yun Jin Kim; Adnan Kisa; Sezer Kisa; Katarzyna Kissimova-Skarbek; Hamidreza Komaki; Ai Koyanagi; Kristopher J Krohn; Burcu Kucuk Bicer; Nuworza Kugbey; Vivek Kumar; Desmond Kuupiel; Carlo La Vecchia; Deepesh P Lad; Eyasu Alem Lake; Ayenew Molla Lakew; Dharmesh Kumar Lal; Faris Hasan Lami; Qing Lan; Savita Lasrado; Paolo Lauriola; Jeffrey V Lazarus; James Leigh; Cheru Tesema Leshargie; Yu Liao; Miteku Andualem Limenih; Stefan Listl; Alan D Lopez; Platon D Lopukhov; Raimundas Lunevicius; Mohammed Madadin; Sameh Magdeldin; Hassan Magdy Abd El Razek; Azeem Majeed; Afshin Maleki; Reza Malekzadeh; Ali Manafi; Navid Manafi; Wondimu Ayele Manamo; Morteza Mansourian; Mohammad Ali Mansournia; Lorenzo Giovanni Mantovani; Saman Maroufizadeh; Santi Martini S Martini; Tivani Phosa Mashamba-Thompson; Benjamin Ballard Massenburg; Motswadi Titus Maswabi; Manu Raj Mathur; Colm McAlinden; Martin McKee; Hailemariam Abiy Alemu Meheretu; Ravi Mehrotra; Varshil Mehta; Toni Meier; Yohannes A Melaku; Gebrekiros Gebremichael Meles; Hagazi Gebre Meles; Addisu Melese; Mulugeta Melku; Peter T N Memiah; Walter Mendoza; Ritesh G Menezes; Shahin Merat; Tuomo J Meretoja; Tomislav Mestrovic; Bartosz Miazgowski; Tomasz Miazgowski; Kebadnew Mulatu M Mihretie; Ted R Miller; Edward J Mills; Seyed Mostafa Mir; Hamed Mirzaei; Hamid Reza Mirzaei; Rashmi Mishra; Babak Moazen; Dara K Mohammad; Karzan Abdulmuhsin Mohammad; Yousef Mohammad; Aso Mohammad Darwesh; Abolfazl Mohammadbeigi; Hiwa Mohammadi; Moslem Mohammadi; Mahdi Mohammadian; Abdollah Mohammadian-Hafshejani; Milad Mohammadoo-Khorasani; Reza Mohammadpourhodki; Ammas Siraj Mohammed; Jemal Abdu Mohammed; Shafiu Mohammed; Farnam Mohebi; Ali H Mokdad; Lorenzo Monasta; Yoshan Moodley; Mahmood Moosazadeh; Maryam Moossavi; Ghobad Moradi; Mohammad Moradi-Joo; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Farhad Moradpour; Lidia Morawska; Joana Morgado-da-Costa; Naho Morisaki; Shane Douglas Morrison; Abbas Mosapour; Seyyed Meysam Mousavi; Achenef Asmamaw Muche; Oumer Sada S Muhammed; Jonah Musa; Ashraf F Nabhan; Mehdi Naderi; Ahamarshan Jayaraman Nagarajan; Gabriele Nagel; Azin Nahvijou; Gurudatta Naik; Farid Najafi; Luigi Naldi; Hae Sung Nam; Naser Nasiri; Javad Nazari; Ionut Negoi; Subas Neupane; Polly A Newcomb; Haruna Asura Nggada; Josephine W Ngunjiri; Cuong Tat Nguyen; Leila Nikniaz; Dina Nur Anggraini Ningrum; Yirga Legesse Nirayo; Molly R Nixon; Chukwudi A Nnaji; Marzieh Nojomi; Shirin Nosratnejad; Malihe Nourollahpour Shiadeh; Mohammed Suleiman Obsa; Richard Ofori-Asenso; Felix Akpojene Ogbo; In-Hwan Oh; Andrew T Olagunju; Tinuke O Olagunju; Mojisola Morenike Oluwasanu; Abidemi E Omonisi; Obinna E Onwujekwe; Anu Mary Oommen; Eyal Oren; Doris D V Ortega-Altamirano; Erika Ota; Stanislav S Otstavnov; Mayowa Ojo Owolabi; Mahesh P A; Jagadish Rao Padubidri; Smita Pakhale; Amir H Pakpour; Adrian Pana; Eun-Kee Park; Hadi Parsian; Tahereh Pashaei; Shanti Patel; Snehal T Patil; Alyssa Pennini; David M Pereira; Cristiano Piccinelli; Julian David Pillay; Majid Pirestani; Farhad Pishgar; Maarten J Postma; Hadi Pourjafar; Farshad Pourmalek; Akram Pourshams; Swayam Prakash; Narayan Prasad; Mostafa Qorbani; Mohammad Rabiee; Navid Rabiee; Amir Radfar; Alireza Rafiei; Fakher Rahim; Mahdi Rahimi; Muhammad Aziz Rahman; Fatemeh Rajati; Saleem M Rana; Samira Raoofi; Goura Kishor Rath; David Laith Rawaf; Salman Rawaf; Robert C Reiner; Andre M N Renzaho; Nima Rezaei; Aziz Rezapour; Ana Isabel Ribeiro; Daniela Ribeiro; Luca Ronfani; Elias Merdassa Roro; Gholamreza Roshandel; Ali Rostami; Ragy Safwat Saad; Parisa Sabbagh; Siamak Sabour; Basema Saddik; Saeid Safiri; Amirhossein Sahebkar; Mohammad Reza Salahshoor; Farkhonde Salehi; Hosni Salem; Marwa Rashad Salem; Hamideh Salimzadeh; Joshua A Salomon; Abdallah M Samy; Juan Sanabria; Milena M Santric Milicevic; Benn Sartorius; Arash Sarveazad; Brijesh Sathian; Maheswar Satpathy; Miloje Savic; Monika Sawhney; Mehdi Sayyah; Ione J C Schneider; Ben Schöttker; Mario Sekerija; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Masood Sepehrimanesh; Seyedmojtaba Seyedmousavi; Faramarz Shaahmadi; Hosein Shabaninejad; Mohammad Shahbaz; Masood Ali Shaikh; Amir Shamshirian; Morteza Shamsizadeh; Heidar Sharafi; Zeinab Sharafi; Mehdi Sharif; Ali Sharifi; Hamid Sharifi; Rajesh Sharma; Aziz Sheikh; Reza Shirkoohi; Sharvari Rahul Shukla; Si Si; Soraya Siabani; Diego Augusto Santos Silva; Dayane Gabriele Alves Silveira; Ambrish Singh; Jasvinder A Singh; Solomon Sisay; Freddy Sitas; Eugène Sobngwi; Moslem Soofi; Joan B Soriano; Vasiliki Stathopoulou; Mu'awiyyah Babale Sufiyan; Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos; Takahiro Tabuchi; Ken Takahashi; Omid Reza Tamtaji; Mohammed Rasoul Tarawneh; Segen Gebremeskel Tassew; Parvaneh Taymoori; Arash Tehrani-Banihashemi; Mohamad-Hani Temsah; Omar Temsah; Berhe Etsay Tesfay; Fisaha Haile Tesfay; Manaye Yihune Teshale; Gizachew Assefa Tessema; Subash Thapa; Kenean Getaneh Tlaye; Roman Topor-Madry; Marcos Roberto Tovani-Palone; Eugenio Traini; Bach Xuan Tran; Khanh Bao Tran; Afewerki Gebremeskel Tsadik; Irfan Ullah; Olalekan A Uthman; Marco Vacante; Maryam Vaezi; Patricia Varona Pérez; Yousef Veisani; Simone Vidale; Francesco S Violante; Vasily Vlassov; Stein Emil Vollset; Theo Vos; Kia Vosoughi; Giang Thu Vu; Isidora S Vujcic; Henry Wabinga; Tesfahun Mulatu Wachamo; Fasil Shiferaw Wagnew; Yasir Waheed; Fitsum Weldegebreal; Girmay Teklay Weldesamuel; Tissa Wijeratne; Dawit Zewdu Wondafrash; Tewodros Eshete Wonde; Adam Belay Wondmieneh; Hailemariam Mekonnen Workie; Rajaram Yadav; Abbas Yadegar; Ali Yadollahpour; Mehdi Yaseri; Vahid Yazdi-Feyzabadi; Alex Yeshaneh; Mohammed Ahmed Yimam; Ebrahim M Yimer; Engida Yisma; Naohiro Yonemoto; Mustafa Z Younis; Bahman Yousefi; Mahmoud Yousefifard; Chuanhua Yu; Erfan Zabeh; Vesna Zadnik; Telma Zahirian Moghadam; Zoubida Zaidi; Mohammad Zamani; Hamed Zandian; Alireza Zangeneh; Leila Zaki; Kazem Zendehdel; Zerihun Menlkalew Zenebe; Taye Abuhay Zewale; Arash Ziapour; Sanjay Zodpey; Christopher J L Murray
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 31.777

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.