Trial reportGut and liver2016
Performance of the Fecal Immunochemical Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening Using Different Stool-Collection Devices: Preliminary Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Gut and liver, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Validation Study of Methylated Syndecan-2 in Stool DNA for the Detection of Colorectal Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Stool DNA-based SDC2 Methylation Test for the Screening of Colorectal Neoplasia in an Asymptomatic, Average-Risk Population.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2026Article
- Article
- Quality Indicators and Outcome Measures of Endoscopy in the National Cancer Screening Program.Yonsei medical journal · 2019Article
- Quality Metrics of a Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea.Gut and liver · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsWe are in the process of conducting a randomized trial to determine whether compliance with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening differs according to the stool-collection method. This study was an interim analysis of the performance of two stool-collection devices (sampling bottle vs conventional container).
methodsIn total, 1,701 individuals (age range, 50 to 74 years) were randomized into the sampling bottle group (intervention arm) or the conventional container group (control arm). In both groups, we evaluated the FIT positivity rate, the positive predictive value for advanced neoplasia, and the detection rate for advanced neoplasia.
resultsThe FIT positivity rates were 4.1% for the sampling bottles and 2.0% for the conventional containers; these values were significantly different. The positive predictive values for advanced neoplasia in the sampling bottles and conventional containers were 11.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.4 to 25.6) and 12.0% (95% CI, -0.7 to 24.7), respectively. The detection rates for advanced neoplasia in the sampling bottles and conventional containers were 4.5 per 1,000 persons (95% CI, 2.0 to 11.0) and 2.4 per 1,000 persons (95% CI, 0.0 to 5.0), respectively.
conclusionsThe impact of these findings on FIT screening performance was unclear in this interim analysis. This impact should therefore be evaluated in the final analysis following the final enrollment period.
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.