Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27753435›Full record

ReviewThe American journal of gastroenterology2017

Recommendations on Fecal Immunochemical Testing to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Consensus Statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Douglas J Robertson, Jeffrey K Lee, C Richard Boland, Jason A Dominitz, Francis M Giardiello, David A Johnson, Tonya Kaltenbach, David Lieberman, Theodore R Levin, Douglas K Rex

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. A Blood-Based Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening.HCA healthcare journal of medicine · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Douglas J RobertsonVA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont, USA.
Jeffrey K LeeUniversity of California, San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA.
C Richard BolandBaylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Jason A DominitzVA Puget Sound Health Care System, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Francis M GiardielloJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
David A JohnsonEastern VA Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, USA.
Tonya KaltenbachSan Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
David LiebermanOregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Theodore R LevinKaiser Permanente Medical Center, Walnut Creek, California, USA.
Douglas K RexIndiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Funding

Optimizing long-term post-polypectomy surveillance for colorectal cancer prevention using a prediction rule developed from a large, community-based cohortK07CA212057 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LEE, JEFFREY KUANG ZOU · 2016 to 2020
$869k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA212057
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is supported by randomized trials demonstrating effectiveness in cancer prevention and widely recommended by guidelines for this purpose. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT), as a direct measure of human hemoglobin in stool has a number of advantages relative to conventional FOBT and is increasingly used relative to that test. This review summarizes current evidence for FIT in colorectal neoplasia detection and the comparative effectiveness of FIT relative to other commonly used CRC screening modalities. Based on evidence, guidance statements on FIT application were developed and quality metrics for program implementation proposed.

Indexed as

AdenomaAdvisory CommitteesCarcinomaColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsDNA, NeoplasmEarly Detection of CancerFecesHemoglobinsHumansImmunochemistryOccult BloodSensitivity and SpecificitySigmoidoscopyUnited StatesDNA, NeoplasmHemoglobins

Identifiers

PMID27753435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.