ArticleCurrent treatment options in gastroenterology2016
Advances in Fecal Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Article in Current treatment options in gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global prevalence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis in patients with colorectal cancer: an overview of case reports/case series and meta-analysis of prevalence studies.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Stool DNA testing for early detection of colorectal cancer: systematic review using the HTA Core ModelGerman medical science : GMS e-journal · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Fecal microbiomes from screening sampling tubes are stable despite varying sampling and storage conditions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluating the implementation of colorectal cancer screening practices at King Abdul-Aziz Medical City, Riyadh.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- Microbiome confounders and quantitative profiling challenge predicted microbial targets in colorectal cancer development.Nature medicine · 2024Article
- Reduction in colorectal cancer incidence by screening endoscopy.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2024Review
- Review
- A Focused Clinical Review of Lynch Syndrome.Cancer management and research · 2023Review
- Microbiome and Colorectal Cancer Management.Cureus · 2022Review
- Risk-stratified selection to colonoscopy in FIT colorectal cancer screening: development and temporal validation of a prediction model.British journal of cancer · 2022Observational
- Accuracy of H. pylori fecal antigen test using fecal immunochemical test (FIT).Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2022Article
- Superiority of fecal carcinoembryonic antigen as diagnosis marker for adenomatous polyposis coli and asymptomatic colorectal cancer.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Role of gut microbiota in epigenetic regulation of colorectal Cancer.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Reviews on cancer · 2021Review
- Colorectal Adenomas-Genetics and Searching for New Molecular Screening Biomarkers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Faecal tests in the early detection of colorectal cancer.Przeglad gastroenterologiczny · 2020Review
- Article
- A Soft Pneumatic Inchworm Double balloon (SPID) for colonoscopy.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Defensin alpha 6 (DEFA6) is a prognostic marker in colorectal cancer.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2019Article
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 in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementColorectal cancer (CRC) forms an important public health problem, especially in developed countries. CRC screening tests can be used to identify asymptomatic individuals with CRC precursors and (early) cancer. Removal of these lesions reduces CRC incidence and prevents CRC-related mortality. There are a range of screening tests available, each with advantages and disadvantages. Stool screening tests can broadly be divided into fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) and molecular biomarker test, such as DNA/RNA marker tests, protein markers, and fecal microbiome marker tests. Guaiac fecal occult blood tests (gFOBT) have been demonstrated in large randomized screening trials to reduce CRC mortality. Fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) have superior adherence, usability, and accuracy as compared to gFOBT. Advantage of the use of quantitative FITs in CRC screening programs is the cut-off level that can be adjusted. Molecular biomarker DNA tests have shown to detect significantly more cancers than FIT. By combining biomarker DNA tests with FIT, sensitivity for advanced adenomas can be increased significantly. However, it has lower specificity thus demands more colonoscopy resources, is more cumbersome, and costly. The adherence has not been assessed in population screening trials. For these reasons, FIT is therefore at present regarded as the preferred method of non-invasive CRC screening. This chapter will review the current status of fecal test-based CRC screening.
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.