ReviewJournal of primary care & community health2017
Which Fecal Immunochemical Test Should I Choose?
Review in Journal of primary care & community health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Findings from the first colorectal cancer screening among 103 542 individuals in Vietnam with systematic review of colorectal cancer screening programs in Asia-Pacific region.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Validation of the biomarker toolkit using diagnostic colorectal cancer biomarkers - an evidence-based tool to support clinical adoption of biomarkers.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- FIT and molecular tests versus colonoscopy: an economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening in the United States.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Potential Impact of Updated Bayesian Deduction in Medicine: Application to Colonoscopy Prioritization.Cancers · 2025Article
- Comparative Performance of Common Fecal Immunochemical Tests : A Cross-Sectional Study.Annals of internal medicine · 2024Article
- Utility of Stool-Based Tests for Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Comprehensive Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- A hands-free stool sampling system for monitoring intestinal health and disease.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Using fecal immunochemical tubes for the analysis of the gut microbiome has the potential to improve colorectal cancer screening.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Comparative effectiveness of five fecal immunochemical tests using colonoscopy as the gold standard: study protocol.Contemporary clinical trials · 2021Article
- Is Colorectal Cancer Screening Appropriate in Nigeria?Journal of global oncology · 2019Review
- Combination of Different Fecal Immunochemical Tests in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Any Gain in Diagnostic Performance?Cancers · 2019Article
- Positive predictive values of fecal immunochemical tests used in the STOP CRC pragmatic trial.Cancer medicine · 2018Article
- Direct comparison of ten quantitative fecal immunochemical tests for hemoglobin stability in colorectal cancer screening.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2018Article
- A Correctional-Public Health Collaboration for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a State Prison System.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo summarize the fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) available in the United States, the 2014 pathology proficiency testing (PT) program FIT results, and the literature related to the test characteristics of FITs available in the United States to detect advanced adenomatous polyps (AAP) and/or colorectal cancer (CRC).
methodsDetailed review of the Food and Drug Administration's Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) database of fecal occult blood tests, the 2014 FIT PT program results, and the literature related to FIT accuracy.
resultsA search of the CLIA database identified 65 FITs, with 26 FITs available for purchase in the United States. Thirteen of these FITs were evaluated on a regular basis by PT programs, with an overall sensitivity of 99.1% and specificity of 99.2% for samples spiked with hemoglobin. Automated FITs had better sensitivity and specificity than CLIA-waived FITs for detection of AAP and CRC in human studies using colonoscopy as the gold standard.
conclusionAlthough many FITs are available in the United States, few have been tested in proficiency testing programs. Even fewer have data in humans on sensitivity and specificity for AAP or CRC. Our review indicates that automated FITs have the best test characteristics for AAP and CRC.
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.