ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2017
Fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening: The gender dilemma.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Selection of patients for large mailed fecal immunochemical test colorectal cancer screening outreach programs: A systematic review.Journal of medical screening · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effect of Sex, Age, and Positivity Threshold on Fecal Immunochemical Test Accuracy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Gastroenterology · 2019Pooled it
- Participant-Related Risk Factors for False-Positive and False-Negative Fecal Immunochemical Tests in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2018Pooled it
- Performance of Faecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening at Varying Positivity Thresholds.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Trial
- Diagnostic yield of a risk model versus faecal immunochemical test only: a randomised controlled trial in a colorectal cancer screening programme.British journal of cancer · 2023Trial
- Interval cancer after two rounds of a Swedish population-based screening program using gender-specific cut-off levels in fecal immunochemical test.Journal of medical screening · 2024Article
- Faecal immunochemical test outside colorectal cancer screening?World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- False-positive fecal immunochemical test results in colorectal cancer screening and gastrointestinal drug use.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Article
- Article
- Aspects of colorectal cancer screening, methods, age and gender.Journal of internal medicine · 2021Review
- Rate of detection of serrated lesions at colonoscopy in an average-risk population: a meta-analysis of 129,001 individuals.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Optimal diagnostic accuracy of quantitative faecal immunochemical test positivity thresholds for colorectal cancer detection in primary health care: A community-based cohort study.United European gastroenterology journal · 2021Article
- Fecal Immunochemical Tests Detect Screening Participants with Multiple Advanced Adenomas Better than T1 Colorectal Cancers.Cancers · 2021Article
- Optimal cut-off value for detecting colorectal cancer with fecal immunochemical tests according to age and sex.PloS one · 2021Article
- Making FIT Count: Maximizing Appropriate Use of the Fecal Immunochemical Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- The cumulative false-positive rate in colorectal cancer screening: a Markov analysis.European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2020Article
- Influence of Varying Quantitative Fecal Immunochemical Test Positivity Thresholds on Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Community-Based Cohort Study.Annals of internal medicine · 2018Article
- Positive predictive values of fecal immunochemical tests used in the STOP CRC pragmatic trial.Cancer medicine · 2018Article
- Lack of Association between Red Meat Consumption and a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Colorectal Cancer Screening Test in Khon Kaen, Thailand: a Population- Based Randomized Controlled TrialAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite differences between men and women in incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and its precursors, screening programs consistently use the same strategy for both genders.
objectiveThe objective of this article is to illustrate the effects of gender-tailored screening, including the effects on miss rates of advanced neoplasia (AN).
methodsParticipants (age 50-75 years) in a colonoscopy screening program were asked to complete a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) before colonoscopy. Positivity rates, sensitivity and specificity for detection of AN at multiple cut-offs were determined. Absolute numbers of detected and missed AN per 1000 screenees were calculated.
resultsIn total 1,256 individuals underwent FIT and colonoscopy, 51% male (median age 61 years; IQR 56-66) and 49% female (median age 60 years; IQR 55-65). At all cut-offs men had higher positivity rates than women, ranging from 3.8% to 10.8% versus 3.2% to 4.8%. Sensitivity for AN was higher in men than women; 40%-25% and 35%-22%, respectively. More AN were found and missed in absolute numbers in men at all cut-offs.
conclusionMore AN were both detected and missed in men compared to women at all cut-offs. Gender-tailored cut-offs could either level sensitivity in men and women (i.e., lower cut-off in women) or level the amount of missed lesions (i.e., lower cut-off in men).
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.