I wasn't able to read the whole thing, only the "free preview" of the article. There's an accompanying editorial, but that's mostly behind a paywall too.
From what I can glean from it, the benefits are real but modest. One's overall risk of death "from any cause" was only reduced by 0.01% and was within the margin of error.
The two groups that they compare were:
Of those who were invited to receive a screening, only 42% actually underwent the screening. In the other group (the control group) it isn't clear whether any of them had a screening colonoscopy for other reasons.The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to either receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (the invited group) or to receive no invitation or screening (the usual-care group).
I would have been curious to see a comparison between a group who definitely had the screening with a second group who definitely did not. As it stands, we know that 42% of the former group were screened, but an unknown percentage of the latter group probably got screened too. :notsure: