ArticleBritish journal of cancer2014
Guaiac faecal occult blood test performance at initial and repeat screens in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of a community-based colorectal cancer screening program in Shanghai, China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Morbidity and mortality after major large bowel resection of non-malignant polyp among participants in a population-based screening program.Journal of medical screening · 2021Article
- Association of ten gastrointestinal and other medical conditions with positivity to faecal occult blood testing in routine screening: a large prospective study of women in England.International journal of epidemiology · 2019Article
- The association between long-term conditions and uptake of population-based screening for colorectal cancer: results from two English cohort studies.Cancer management and research · 2018Article
- Defining and measuring adherence to cancer screening.Journal of medical screening · 2016Article
- Factors associated with completion of bowel cancer screening and the potential effects of simplifying the screening test algorithm.British journal of cancer · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn many countries, screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) relies on repeat testing using the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT). This study aimed to compare gFOBT performance measures between initial and repeat screens.
methodsData on screening uptake and outcomes from the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) for the years 2008 and 2011 were used. An existing CRC natural history model was used to estimate gFOBT sensitivity and specificity, and the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies.
resultsThe gFOBT sensitivity for CRC was estimated to decrease from 27.35% at the initial screen to 20.22% at the repeat screen. Decreases were also observed for the positive predictive value (8.4-7.2%) and detection rate for CRC (0.19-0.14%). Assuming equal performance measures for both the initial and repeat screens led to an overestimate of the cost effectiveness of gFOBT screening compared with the other screening modalities.
conclusionsPerformance measures for gFOBT screening were generally lower in the repeat screen compared with the initial screen. Screening for CRC using gFOBT is likely to be cost-effective; however, the use of different screening modalities may result in additional benefits. Future economic evaluations of gFOBT should not assume equal sensitivities between screening rounds.
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.