Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25492500›Full record

ReviewDigestive diseases and sciences2015

Advances in Fecal Occult Blood Tests: the FIT revolution.

Graeme P Young, Erin L Symonds, James E Allison, Stephen R Cole, Callum G Fraser, Stephen P Halloran, Ernst J Kuipers, Helen E Seaman

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 92 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03264898 completednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Comparative Effectiveness of Fecal Immunochemical Tests With Optical Colonoscopy (R01 CA215034)

TypeobservationalSponsorBarcey T. LevyRan2017 to 2023Enrolled3,761ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsFecal immunochemical test (FIT)
NCT05661292 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Validation of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasm Risk Categories in Screening Colonoscopy and Identification of Biomarkers in a Prospective Cohort in Mexico.

TypeobservationalSponsorInstituto Nacional de Ciencias Medicas y Nutricion Salvador ZubiranRan2019 to 2025Enrolled2,000ConditionsColorectal Cancer ScreeningArmsFecal inmunochemical test, Colonoscopy, Optional collection of tissue, blood and urine for future biomedical research
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

92 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Acceptability of Stool-Based DNA Colorectal Cancer Screening among Black/African-American Patients Served by Federally Qualified Health Centers.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Graeme P YoungFlinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer L3:100, Flinders University, Post Office Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia, Graeme.Young@flinders.edu.au.
Erin L Symonds
James E Allison
Stephen R Cole
Callum G Fraser
Stephen P Halloran
Ernst J Kuipers
Helen E Seaman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThere is a wide choice of fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) for colorectal cancer screening. GOAL: To highlight the issues applicable when choosing a FOBT, in particular which FOBT is best suited to the range of screening scenarios. Four scenarios characterize the constraints and expectations of screening programs: (1) limited colonoscopy resource with a need to constrain test positivity rate; (2) a priority for maximum colorectal neoplasia detection with little need to constrain colonoscopy workload; (3) an "adequate" endoscopy resource that allows balancing the benefits of detection with the burden of service provision; and (4) a need to maximize participation in screening. Guaiac-based FOBTs (gFOBTs) have significant deficiencies, and fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for hemoglobin have emerged as better tests. gFOBTs are not sensitive to small bleeds, specificity can be affected by diet or drugs, participant acceptance can be low, laboratory quality control opportunities are limited, and they have a fixed hemoglobin concentration cutoff determining positivity. FITs are analytically more specific, capable of quantitation and hence provide flexibility to adjust cutoff concentration for positivity and the balance between sensitivity and specificity. FITs are clinically more sensitive for cancers and advanced adenomas, and because they are easier to use, acceptance rates are high.

conclusionsFOBT must be chosen carefully to meet the needs of the applicable screening scenario. Quantitative FIT can be adjusted to suit Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, and for each, they are the test of choice. FITs are superior to gFOBT for Scenario 4 and gFOBT is only suitable for Scenario 1.

Indexed as

Immunologic TestsOccult BloodColorectal NeoplasmsFecesHemoglobinsHumansMass ScreeningHemoglobins

Identifiers

PMID25492500
PMCPMC4366567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.