ReviewCureus2016
A Review of Colorectal Cancer Detection Modalities, Stool DNA, and Fecal Immunochemistry Testing in Adults Over the Age of 50.
Review in Cureus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Potential anticancer properties and mechanisms of thymoquinone in colorectal cancer.Cancer cell international · 2023Review
- Molecular methods for colorectal cancer screening: Progress with next-generation sequencing evolution.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Review
- Novel Diagnostic Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Application of weighted gene co‑expression network analysis to explore the potential diagnostic biomarkers for colorectal cancer.Molecular medicine reports · 2020Article
- The Rise of Colorectal Cancer in Asia: Epidemiology, Screening, and Management.Current gastroenterology reports · 2019Review
- Blood Collection and Cell-Free DNA Isolation Methods Influence the Sensitivity of Liquid Biopsy Analysis for Colorectal Cancer Detection.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2019Article
- Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Taking Liquid Biopsy to the Clinic: Validation of the JAX PlasmaMonitorBiomarker insights · 2019Article
- Microbiome and Colorectal Cancer.Current colorectal cancer reports · 2018Article
- Predicting the presence of adenomatous polyps during colonoscopy with National Cancer Institute Colorectal Cancer Risk-Assessment Tool.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Observational
- Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Recently, more focus has been placed on developing effective screening tools to detect the presence of both precancerous and cancerous lesions present in the colon and rectum. Colonoscopy has been well established as the gold standard of the colon and rectal cancer screening. However, not all patients are willing to undergo a colonoscopy due to the procedure's invasive nature. Non-invasive screening methods have been developed to appeal to patients who refuse colonoscopy. Fecal occult blood tests have long been used by physicians, in addition to colonoscopy, in an effort to screen for CRC. New screening methods, such as fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and stool DNA (sDNA) testing, have been developed as a more sensitive screening measure to attempt to accurately screen patients who have precancerous or cancerous colorectal lesions. This article compares CRC screening techniques through literature review in order to determine which tests offer the most sensitive detection of CRC and precancerous lesions in average-risk adults over the age of 50 years old. Through this review, it can be seen that sDNA is more sensitive than FIT in detecting all stages of CRC, as well as precancerous lesions.
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.