Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24519111›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2014

Sensitivity and specificity of CT colonography for the detection of colonic neoplasia after positive faecal occult blood testing: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Andrew A Plumb, Steve Halligan, Douglas A Pendsé, Stuart A Taylor, Susan Mallett

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. A blood screening test for Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2016
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Comparison of tomographic and colonoscopic diagnoses in the presence of colonic wall thickening.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrew A PlumbCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Steve Halligan
Douglas A Pendsé
Stuart A Taylor
Susan Mallett
University College London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10338
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCT colonography (CTC) is recommended after positive faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) when colonoscopy is incomplete or infeasible. We aimed to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of CTC for colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps following positive FOBt via systematic review.

methodsThe MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and Cochrane Library databases were searched for CTC studies reporting sensitivity and specificity for colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps. Included subjects had tested FOBt-positive by guaiac or immunochemical methods. Per-patient detection rates were summarized via forest plots. Meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity was conducted using a bivariate random effects model and the average operating point calculated.

resultsOf 538 articles considered, 5 met inclusion criteria, describing results from 622 patients. Research study quality was good. CTC had a high per-patient average sensitivity of 88.8 % (95 % CI 83.6 to 92.5 %) for ≥6 mm adenomas or colorectal cancer, with low between-study heterogeneity. Specificity was both more heterogeneous and lower, at an average of 75.4 % (95 % CI 58.6 to 86.8 %).

conclusionFew studies have investigated CTC in FOBt-positive individuals. CTC is sensitive at a ≥6 mm threshold but specificity is lower and variable. Despite the limited data, these results suggest that CTC may adequately substitute for colonoscopy when the latter is undesirable. KEY POINTS: • FOBt is the most common mass screening test for colorectal cancer. • Few studies evaluate CT colonography after positive FOBt. • CTC is approximately 89 % sensitive for ≥6 mm adenomas/cancer in this setting. • Specificity is lower, at approximately 75 %, and more variable. • CT colonography is a good alternative when colonoscopy is undesirable.

Indexed as

Colonography, Computed TomographicOccult BloodAdenomaColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsHumansMass ScreeningPredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID24519111
OpenAlexW1989269390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.