SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007
Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 235 papers, 23 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Combining Risk Factors and Faecal Immunochemical Testing in Colorectal Cancer Screening: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Impact of SMS Notifications on the Colorectal Cancer Screening Program
Who cites it
235 citing papers in PubMed, 23 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 738 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and Safety of Colorectal Cancer Screening Via Fecal Occult Blood Testing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Experience and satisfaction of participants in colorectal cancer screening programs: a qualitative evidence synthesis.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The role of faecal calprotectin in diagnosis and staging of colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Pooled it
- Satisfaction and experience with colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review of validated patient reported outcome measures.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- Strategies for screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia in primary care and other community settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Inequalities and risk factors related to non-participation in colorectal cancer screening programmes: a systematic review.European journal of public health · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comparison of the participation rate between CT colonography and colonoscopy in screening population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.The British journal of radiology · 2020Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of FOBT and Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis.Annals of global health · 2019Pooled it
- Socioeconomic determinants of cancer screening utilisation in Latin America: A systematic review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- The contribution of endoscopy quality measures to the development of interval colorectal cancers in the screening population: a systematic review.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Pooled it
- Growth differentiation factor 15 is a promising diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in colorectal cancer.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Stool Investigations for Colorectal Cancer Screening: From Occult Blood Test to DNA Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2016Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of breast cancer mortality benefit and overdiagnosis adjusted for adherence: improving information on the effects of attending screening mammography.British journal of cancer · 2016Pooled it
- Colorectal Cancer Screening in Average Risk Populations: Evidence Summary.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2016Pooled it
- Predictive power of circulating miRNAs in detecting colorectal cancer.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline.European radiology · 2015Guideline
- Systematic review of clinical features of suspected colorectal cancer in primary care.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2014Pooled it
175 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in the Western world. The human and financial costs of this disease have prompted considerable research efforts to evaluate the ability of screening tests to detect the cancer at an early curable stage. Tests that have been considered for population screening include variants of the faecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) may be achieved by the introduction of population-based screening programmes.
objectivesTo determine whether screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test (guaiac or immunochemical) reduces colorectal cancer mortality and to consider the benefits, harms and potential consequences of screening. SEARCH STRATEGY: Published and unpublished data for this review were identified by: Reviewing studies included in the previous Cochrane review; Searching several electronic databases (Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Amed, SIGLE, HMIC); and Writing to the principal investigators of potentially eligible trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included in this review all randomised trials of screening for colorectal cancer that compared faecal occult blood test (guaiac or immunochemical) on more than one occasion with no screening and reported colorectal cancer mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data from the eligible trials were independently extracted by two reviewers. The primary data analysis was performed using the group participants were originally randomised to ('intention to screen'), whether or not they attended screening; a secondary analysis adjusted for non-attendence. We calculated the relative risks and risk differences for each trial, and then overall, using fixed and random effects models (including testing for heterogeneity of effects). We identified nine articles concerning four randomised controlled trials and two controlled trials involving over 320,000 participants with follow-up ranging from 8 to 18 years. MAIN
resultsCombined results from the 4 eligible randomised controlled trials shows that participants allocated to screening had a 16% reduction in the relative risk of colorectal cancer mortality (RR 0.84, CI: 0.78-0.90). In the 3 studies that used biennial screening (Funen, Minnesota, Nottingham) there was a 15% relative risk reduction (RR 0.85, CI: 0.78-0.92) in colorectal cancer mortality. When adjusted for screening attendance in the individual studies, there was a 25% relative risk reduction (RR 0.75, CI: 0.66 - 0.84) for those attending at least one round of screening using the faecal occult blood test. AUTHORS'
conclusionsBenefits of screening include a modest reduction in colorectal cancer mortality, a possible reduction in cancer incidence through the detection and removal of colorectal adenomas, and potentially, the less invasive surgery that earlier treatment of colorectal cancers may involve. Harmful effects of screening include the psycho-social consequences of receiving a false-positive result, the potentially significant complications of colonoscopy or a false-negative result, the possibility of overdiagnosis (leading to unnecessary investigations or treatment) and the complications associated with treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.