Trial reportPreventive medicine2013
Uptake and positive predictive value of fecal occult blood tests: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Preventive medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- One- versus two-sample fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of participation, diagnostic performance, and cost-effectiveness.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Single-round performance of colorectal cancer screening programs: a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Colorectal Cancer Screening in Average Risk Populations: Evidence Summary.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2016Pooled it
- Trial
- System-Wide Implementation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Value-Based Care Setting.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Observational
- Fecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Prevention in Two Public Hospitals.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Article
- Review
- Interval Cancer in Population-Based Colorectal Screening Programmes: Incidence and Characteristics of Tumours.Cancers · 2024Article
- Detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia and relative colonoscopy workloads using quantitative faecal immunochemical tests: an observational study exploring the effects of simultaneous adjustment of both sample number and test positivity threshold.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2020Observational
- The Impact of Transitioning From Guaiac-Fecal Occult Blood Testing to Fecal Immunochemical Testing in a Canadian Colon Cancer Screening Program.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Summit.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2020Article
- Article
- Time to fecal immunochemical test completion for colorectal cancer screening.The American journal of managed care · 2019Article
- The fecal immunochemical test (fit): Selected aspects regarding its effectiveness for colorectal cancer screening in Quebec City.Preventive medicine reports · 2018Article
- A Multi-Level Fit-Based Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Managed Care Population.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Article
- Recommendations on Fecal Immunochemical Testing to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Consensus Statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2017Review
- Does Low Threshold Value Use Improve Proximal Neoplasia Detection by Fecal Immunochemical Test?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2016Article
- Factors associated with use and non-use of the Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) kit for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Response to a 2012 outreach screening program: a survey study.BMC public health · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study is to compare the uptake of three mailed high-sensitivity fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs).
methodsWe conducted a parallel 3-arm randomized controlled trial in an integrated healthcare delivery system in Washington State. From January 2010 through February 2011, automated data were used to identify potentially eligible patients aged 50-74 due for colorectal cancer screening. Participants were mailed one of three FOBT kits (1-sample OC-Auto® fecal immunochemical test [FIT], 2-sample InSure® FIT, or 3-sample guaiac Hemoccult SENSA®), instructions, and a postage-paid return envelope. We performed a modified intent-to-treat analysis with return of any FOBT within 6 months of randomization as the primary outcome.
resultsOf the 9922 people invited, 2873 returned surveys, 2263 were randomized, and 2234 were analyzed. FOBTs were returned by 1431 participants. At 6 months post-randomization, the proportions screened by any FOBT were 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.72) for the OC-Auto arm, 0.64 (95% CI: 0.61-0.68) for the InSure arm, and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.58-0.65) for the Hemoccult SENSA arm (P<0.001 for any difference). Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences between the OC-Auto group and each of the other groups after correction for multiple comparisons.
conclusionUptake of mailed FOBT kits varies by kit type.
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.