ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2013
FIT testing: an overview.
Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- FIT and molecular tests versus colonoscopy: an economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening in the United States.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Cracking the Code of Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Overview With a Focus on Current and Emerging Screening Methods.Cureus · 2025Review
- Real-world data evaluating Guy's rapid diagnostic clinic as an alternate pathway for patients with FIT levels below 10.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Liquid Biopsy for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Patients Who Are Unscreened.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Performance of the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer and advanced neoplasia in individuals under age 50.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Review
- Learning to be More Positive About FIT.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Which Fecal Immunochemical Test Should I Choose?Journal of primary care & community health · 2017Review
- 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
- Timeliness of Colonoscopy After Abnormal Fecal Test Results in a Safety Net Practice.Journal of community health · 2016Article
- Cost-effectiveness of patient navigation to increase adherence with screening colonoscopy among minority individuals.Cancer · 2015Article
- Developments in Screening Tests and Strategies for Colorectal Cancer.BioMed research international · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common, but preventable, disease and is the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S. CRC screening has proven effective at reducing both the incidence and mortality of this disease, using any of a number of screening tests available. The test options range from the least invasive and least expensive to more invasive and costly options. Fecal occult blood testing is the oldest, least expensive, and least invasive of these options and has evolved from the poorly sensitive standard guaiac test to the newer and diagnostically superior fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for hemoglobin. This article explores the evolutionary history of fecal occult blood testing, examines test performance characteristics among different FOBTs, and evaluates the role of the FIT in programmatic CRC screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24218070What 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.