Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26392783›Full record

ArticleClinical and experimental gastroenterology2015

The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios of fecal occult blood test for the detection of colorectal cancer in hospital settings.

Salah H Elsafi, Norah I Alqahtani, Nawaf Y Zakary, Eidan M Al Zahrani

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and experimental gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. National cancer screening program for colorectal cancer in Korea.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Urine NMR Metabolomics for Precision Oncology in Colorectal Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational
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

4 authors at 1 institution.

Salah H ElsafiClinical Laboratory Science Department, Prince Sultan Military College of Health Sciences, Dhahran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Norah I AlqahtaniClinical Laboratory Science Department, Prince Sultan Military College of Health Sciences, Dhahran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Nawaf Y ZakaryGastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Internal Medicine Department, King Fahd Military Medical Complex, Dhahran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Eidan M Al ZahraniPrince Sultan Military College of Heath Sciences, Dhahran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Prince Sultan Military College of Health Sciences

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo study the performance of a single test using two fecal occult blood tests with colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) for the first time in Saudi Arabia to determine possible implications for the anticipated colorectal screening program. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe compared the performance of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for the detection of CRC among patients of 50-74 years old attending two hospitals in the Eastern Region of Saudi Arabia. Samples of feces were collected from 257 asymptomatic patients and 20 cases of confirmed CRC, and they were tested simultaneously by the guaiac-based occult blood test and monoclonal antibody-based immunoassay kit. Colonoscopy was performed on all participants and the results were statistically analyzed with both positive and negative occult blood tests of both methods.

resultsOf the 277 subjects, 79 tested positive for occult blood with at least one method. Overall, the number of those with an occult blood-positive result by both tests was 39 (14.1%), while for 198 (71.5%), both tests were negative (P<0.0001); 40 (14.4%) samples showed a discrepant result. Colonoscopy data were obtained for all 277 patients. A total of three invasive cancers were detected among the screening group. Of the three, the guaiac test detected two cases, while the immunochemical test detected three of them. Of the 20 control cases, the guaiac test detected 13 CRC cases (P=0.03), while the immunochemical test detected 16 of them (P<0.0001). The sensitivity of guaiac and immunochemical tests for the detection of CRC in the screening group was 50.00% (95% confidence interval [CI] =6.76-93.24) and 75.00% (95% CI =19.41-99.37), respectively. For comparison, the sensitivity of the guaiac fecal occult blood test for detecting CRC among the control group was 65.00% (95% CI =40.78-84.61) while that of FIT was 80.00% (95% CI =56.34-94.27). The specificity of the guaiac and immunoassay tests was 77.87% (95% CI =72.24-82.83) and 90.12% (95% CI =85.76-93.50), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio of guaiac and immunochemical tests for the detection of CRC was 2.26 (95% CI =0.83-6.18) and 7.59 (95% CI =3.86-14.94), whereas the negative likelihood ratio was 0.64 (95% CI =0.24-1.71) and 0.28 (95% CI =0.05-1.52), respectively. The positive predictive values of guaiac and immunochemical tests were 3.45% (95% CI =0.426-11.91) and 10.71% (95% CI =2.27-28.23), respectively. There was no marked difference in the negative predictive values for both methods. The sensitivity of the fecal occult blood test by FIT was significantly higher for stages III and IV colorectal cancer than for stages I and II (P=0.01) and it was insignificant for the guaiac fecal occult blood test (P=0.07).

conclusionIn areas where other advance screening methods of CRC are not feasible, the use of FIT can be considered.

Indexed as

colorectal cancerendoscopyfecal occult blood testguaiacimmunochemical

Identifiers

PMID26392783
PMCPMC4573202
OpenAlexW1660071439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.