ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2009
Performance value of high risk factors in colorectal cancer screening in China.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Effect of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy on surgical site wound infection and hospital stay in patients with acute appendicitis: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- Gallstones are associated with colonic adenoma: a meta-analysis.World journal of surgery · 2012Pooled it
- Long-term effectiveness of a two-step colorectal cancer screening strategy and risk of colorectal cancer after polypectomy.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2026Article
- Feasibility and safety of endoscopic retrograde appendiceal foreign body removal in children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening under different scenarios of colonoscopy adherence: a microsimulation study.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Is appendoscope a new option for the treatment of acute appendicitis?World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Derivation and validation of a nomogram incorporating modifiable lifestyle factors to predict development of colorectal adenomas after negative index colonoscopy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of fecal DNA syndecan-2 methylation testing for detection of colorectal cancer in a high-risk Chinese population.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Population-based screening for colorectal cancer in Wuhan, China.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- A qualitative interview study on colorectal cancer screening in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Application of the 'online assessment + FOBT at home' to improve participation and the efficacy of opportunistic screening for colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Age- and sex-stratified detection rates and associated factors of colorectal neoplasia in the Tianjin colorectal cancer screening program from 2012 to 2020.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Article
- Reply: Request for clarification on symptom assessment methodology in high-risk population colonoscopy study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Modifiable lifestyle factors have a larger contribution to colorectal neoplasms than family history.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening in Shanghai, China: A modelling study.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy versus laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis.Endoscopy · 2022Review
- Article
- Improved risk scoring systems for colorectal cancer screening in Shanghai, China.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo analyze the performance value of high risk factors in population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in China.
methodsWe compared the performance value of the immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) and other high risk factors questionnaire in a population sample of 13 214 community residents who completed both the iFOBT and questionnaire investigation. Patients with either a positive iFOBT and/or questionnaire were regarded as a high risk population and those eligible were asked to undergo colonoscopy.
resultsThe iFOBT had the highest positive predictive value and negative predictive value in screening for advanced neoplasia. The iFOBT had the highest sensitivity, lowest number of extra false positive results associated with the detection of one extra abnormality for screening advanced neoplasias and adenomas. A history of chronic cholecystitis or cholecystectomy, chronic appendicitis or appendectomy, and chronic diarrhea also had a higher sensitivity than a history of adenomatous polyps in screening for advanced neoplasias and adenomas. The sensitivity of a history of chronic cholecystitis or cholecystectomy was highest among the 10 high risk factors in screening for non-adenomatous polyps. A history of chronic appendicitis or appendectomy, chronic constipation, chronic diarrhea, mucous and bloody stool, CRC in first degree relatives, malignant tumor and a positive iFOBT also had higher sensitivities than a history of adenomas polyps in screening for non-adenomatous polyps. Except for a history of malignant tumor in screening for non-adenomatous polyps, the gain in sensitivity was associated with an increase in extra false positive results associated with the detection of one extra abnormality.
conclusionThe iFOBT may be the best marker for screening for advanced neoplasias and adenomas. Some unique high risk factors may play an important role in CRC screening in China.
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.