ArticleScientific reports2017
Fecal Occult Blood Test Results of the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in South Korea (2006-2013).
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Current status and challenges of colorectal cancer screening program in Guangzhou, China: a population-based study.Gastroenterology report · 2026Article
- Potential global loss of life expected due to COVID-19 disruptions to organised colorectal cancer screening.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening With High Risk-Factor Questionnaire and Fecal Immunochemical Tests Among 5, 947, 986 Asymptomatic Population: A Population-Based Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Disparities in Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Individuals: An Ecobiosocial Approach.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of a community-based colorectal cancer screening program in Shanghai, China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Body Mass Index and Other Risk Factors Effects on Colon Cancer Prognosis in Pakistan.Journal of cancer & allied specialties · 2022Article
- Implementation and results of a gastrointestinal cancer screening program in an Amazon rainforest village: A descriptive study.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Clinical Significance of Gender and Body Mass Index in Asian Patients with Colorectal Cancer.Journal of Cancer · 2019Article
- 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There has been controversy regarding the clinical utility of fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as a screening tool for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the general population. The purpose of this study was to examine the results of Korea national CRC screening using FOBT from 2006 to 2013 and to evaluate the implementation of the program. We analyzed the results of FOBT, colonoscopy, and the side effects during colonoscopy for the subjects (n = 20,609,909) from the Korea National Health Insurance Cancer Screening database. For evaluation of Korea national CRC screening program implementation over the 8-year period, we calculated uptake rate, FOBT positivity rate, and subsequent test compliance rate. The overall uptake rate was 30.1%, with an increasing pattern from 2006 to 2011. A relatively higher FOBT positivity rate (6.4%) and lower subsequent test compliance rate (46.6%) were observed in comparison to the results previously reported in Western countries. Side effects reported within 3 months period after colonoscopy accounted for 0.17% of all procedures, with bleeding being the most prevalent type. Although the implementation of CRC screening program using FOBT in Korea seems successful, trends in key indicators for Korea national CRC screening program should be monitored continuously.
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.