Trial reportPloS one2013
Validity of fecal occult blood test in the national cancer screening program, Korea.
Trial report in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Findings from the first colorectal cancer screening among 103 542 individuals in Vietnam with systematic review of colorectal cancer screening programs in Asia-Pacific region.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of Sex, Age, and Positivity Threshold on Fecal Immunochemical Test Accuracy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Gastroenterology · 2019Pooled it
- Colon lesions in elderly individuals with positive and negative fecal immunochemical test results among PERSIAN Guilan cohort study (PGCS) population.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of the Korean National Cancer Screening Program in Reducing Colorectal Cancer Mortality.Cancers · 2024Article
- Association between Endoscopist Volume and Interval Cancers after Colonoscopy: Results from the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea.Cancer research and treatment · 2024Article
- National cancer screening program for colorectal cancer in Korea.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2023Review
- Positive faecal immunochemical test predicts the onset of inflammatory bowel disease: A nationwide, propensity score-matched study.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Article
- Optimizing the colorectal cancer screening programme using faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in Flanders, Belgium from the "interval cancer" perspective.British journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening for optimal use of colonoscopy resources.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2021Article
- Use of Antiplatelet Agents Decreases the Positive Predictive Value of Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Colorectal Cancer but Does Not Affect Their Sensitivity.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Review
- Fecal Multidimensional Assay for Non-Invasive Detection of Colorectal Cancer: Fecal Immunochemical Test, Stool DNA Mutation, Methylation, and Intestinal Bacteria Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Interval Cancer Rate and Diagnostic Performance of Fecal Immunochemical Test According to Family History of Colorectal Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Fecal Immunochemical Test as a Screening Method for Colorectal Cancer in University College Hospital Ibadan, Nigeria.JCO global oncology · 2020Article
- Quality Indicators and Outcome Measures of Endoscopy in the National Cancer Screening Program.Yonsei medical journal · 2019Article
- Influence of Varying Quantitative Fecal Immunochemical Test Positivity Thresholds on Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Community-Based Cohort Study.Annals of internal medicine · 2018Article
- Revision of Quality Indicators for the Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program of the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea.Clinical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Budget Impact of the Accreditation Program for Clinical Laboratories on Colorectal Cancer Screening via Fecal Immunochemical Testing: Results from the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2018Article
- Risk of Interval Cancer in Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening Significantly Higher During the Summer Months: Results from the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aims of the current study were to assess the validity of the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in an organized screening setting in Korea and to determine factors associated with FOBT validity, such as screening round, age group, and anatomical location of the cancer.
methodsStudy participants were those who were 50 years and older who received an FOBT through the National Cancer Screening Program between 2004 and 2007. Colorectal cancer diagnoses were ascertained through linkage with the Korean National Cancer Incidence Database. The positivity rate, colorectal cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of the FOBT were calculated.
resultsA total of 2,193,093 tests were included in the analysis. Overall, the sensitivity of the FOBT for colorectal cancer was 59.7% for the first round and 56.1% for the subsequent round. Sensitivity was highest for distal colon cancer (65.9%) in the first round, and for rectal cancer (58.4%) for the subsequent round. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of the FOBT generally improved between 2004 and 2008.
conclusionsThe FOBT showed reasonable validity in an organized screening setting, and the validity of the FOBT varied by screening round, anatomical location, and screening year.
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.