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.
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.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gut microbiome biomarkers for colorectal cancer detection: a systematic review highlighting age as a key confounder.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Stage-Specific Sensitivity of Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Detecting Colorectal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2020Pooled it
- Diagnostic Accuracy of FOBT and Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis.Annals of global health · 2019Pooled it
- High Accuracy Stool Biomarkers of Precancerous Colorectal Cancer Identified Using a 2000-Plex Immunoproteomic Screen.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2026Article
- Limited Diagnostic Yield of Routine Gastroscopy in FIT-Positive Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Faecal occult blood testing in persons aged 50-74 years with established spinal cord injury: a prospective case series.Spinal cord series and cases · 2025Article
- Trends and Gaps in Colorectal Cancer Screening Research in the Arab World: A 16-Year Bibliometric Analysis (2007-2023).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of a Blood-Based Biomarker Panel for Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Pilot Study.Cancers · 2024Article
- The multispecies microbial cluster of Fusobacterium, Parvimonas, Bacteroides and Faecalibacterium as a precision biomarker for colorectal cancer diagnosis.Molecular oncology · 2024Article
- Review
- The utility of liquid biopsy-based methylation biomarkers for colorectal cancer detection.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- National cancer screening program for colorectal cancer in Korea.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2023Review
- Assessing overdiagnosis of fecal immunological test screening for colorectal cancer with a digital twin approach.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- Identification of taxonomic changes in the fecal bacteriome associated with colorectal polyps and cancer: potential biomarkers for early diagnosis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Multi-Omics Approaches in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Recent Updates and Future Perspectives.Cancers · 2022Review
- Blood Transcript Biomarkers Selected by Machine Learning Algorithm Classify Neurodegenerative Diseases including Alzheimer's Disease.Biomolecules · 2022Article
- Urine NMR Metabolomics for Precision Oncology in Colorectal Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- A Comprehensive Metabolomics Analysis of Fecal Samples from Advanced Adenoma and Colorectal Cancer Patients.Metabolites · 2022Article
- The Application of Metabolomics in Recent Colorectal Cancer Studies: A State-of-the-Art Review.Cancers · 2022Review
- Dysbiosis of human gut microbiome in young-onset colorectal cancer.Nature communications · 2021Observational
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 at 1 institution.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.